American  Diplomacy 


AND    THE   FURTHERANCE  OF  COMMERCE 


EUGENE  SCHUYLER,  PH.D.,  LL.D. 

Corresponding  Member  of  the  Roumanian  Academy,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 
Lately  Minister  o/ the  United  States  to  Greece,  Roumania  and  Serbia 


UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1886 


5f^^.^ 


Copyright,  1886,  by 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


PRINTINQ  AND  BOOKBINDING  COMPANY, 
NEW  YORK. 


TO 
THE  HONORABLE 

J.   S.   BANCROFT    DAVIS 

DIPLOMATIST,  STATESMAN, 
AND  JURIST 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/americandiplomacOOschurich 


PREFACE 


This  book  Is  based  on  two  courses  of  lectures. 
The  first  series,  on  our  Consular  and  Diplomatic  Ser- 
vice, was  given  at  Johns  Hopkins  University,  and 
also  at  Cornell  University,  in  the  winter  of  1885.  My 
object  then  was  to  explain  the  actual  workings  of 
one  department  of  our  Government,  about  which 
there  seems  to  be  much  ignorance  and  misunderstand- 
ing. My  desire  was  to  set  forth  the  usefulness  and 
the  needs  of  these  services  to  young  men  who  were 
shortly  to  be  jcalled  unon  to  perform  the  duties  of 
citizens.  My  only  qualification  was  a  deep  interest 
in  the  welfare  of  my  country  and  in  a  service  in  which 
I  had  spent  seventeen  years.* 

*  I  may,  perhaps,  be  pardoned  for  stating  in  detail  my  official 
experience.  I  entered  on  my  duties  as  consul  at  Moscow  in 
August,  1867;  as  consul  at  Reval  in  November,  1869;  as 
secretary  of  legation,  at  St.  Petersburg  in  April,  1870  (remain- 
ing there  nearly  six  years,  and  being  charge  d'affaires  in  the 
absence  of  a  minister  for  thirty  out  of  seventy  months,  or 
nearly  one-half  the  time)  ;  as  secretary  of  legation  and  con- 
sul-general at  Constantinople  in  July,  1876  ;  as  consul  at  Bir- 
mingham in  October,  1878  ;  as  consul-general  at  Rome  in 
August,  1879 ;  as  charge  d'affaires  and  consul-general  at 
Bucarest  in  July,  1880  ;  and  as  minister  resident  and  consul- 
general  to  Greece,  Roumania,  and  Serbia  in  July,  1882.     This 


VI  PREFACE. 

These  lectures  were  so  favorably  received  that  in 
the  autumn  of  1885  I  gave  another  course  at  Cornell 
University,  with  the  intention  of  showing  how  our 
diplomacy  had  been  practically  useful  in  furthering^ 
our  commerce  and  navigation.  The  examples  given 
from  our  diplomatic  history  are  by  no  means  all.  My 
endeavor  was  to  show  only  how  we  asserted  our  rights 
to  freedom  of  navigation,  freedom  from  tribute  such 
as  was  paid  to  the  Barbary  pirates,  freedom  from  the 
police  supervision  of  the  Ocean  which  Great  Britain 
at  one  time  wished  to  obtain,  and  freedom  from  the 
restrictions  on  the  free  navigation  of  rivers  and  seas, 
about  which  we  had  disputes  with  powers  so  remote 
as  Spain,  Great  Britain,  Russia,  Denmark,  and  Brazil. 
At  that  time  we  had  a  mercantile  marine  and  a  carry- 
ing trade  worth  caring  for,  and  therefore  our  efforts 
to  assert  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  time  of  war  followed 
naturally  in  the  development  of  the  subject.  A  chap- 
ter has  been  devoted  to  the  fishery  question,  which 
has  occupied  the  attention  of  our  statesmen  from  the 
beginning  of  our  Government  to  the  present  time. 
The  concluding  chapter  considers  the  efforts  of  our 
Government  to  conclude  commercial  treaties  with 
foreign  powers.  It  was  impossible  to  speak  of  the 
purely  political  ends  which  our  diplomacy  has  had  in 
view  at  different  times,  without  reviewing  the  whole 
of  our  diplomatic  history.  But  even  within  the  limits 
to  which  I  had  restricted  myself  there  are  many  im- 

last  mission  terminated  in  July,  1884,  owing  to  the  failure  of 
an  appropriation.  During  my  residence  at  Bucarest  I  negoti- 
ated and  signed  three  treaties  with  Roumania  and  two  with 
Serbia. 


PRE  FA  CE.  VI 1 

portant  topics  which  it  has  been  necessary  to  pass  by. 
Such  is  the  question  of  neutral  duties,  as  distinguished 
from  neutral  rights ;  such  is  the  whole  subject  of  our 
commercial  relations  with  Japan,  China,  and  the  East 
of  Asia ;  such  is  the  formation  of  the  postal  union, 
with  uniform  postage,  which  is  due  to  the  initiative 
of  the  United  States ;  such  are  the  extradition  of 
criminals,  the  protection  of  patents,  trademarks,  copy- 
right, and  submarine  telegraphic  cables  ;  the  unity  of 
weights  and  measures,  and  the  question  of  a  bimetallic 
currency. 

I  desire  to  express  my  sincere  thanks  to  the  officials 
of  the  State  Department  for  their  courtesy  and  assist- 
ance in  allowing  me  access  to  the  archives  and  the 
library  of  the  Department ;  and  to  the  authorities  of 
Johns  Hopkins  and  Cornell  Universities  for  allowing 
me  to  print  these  lectures. 

Eugene  Schuyler. 

Washington,  February  8,  1886. 


CONTENTS 


I.— THE   DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE. 

PAGB 

Constitutional  Theory  and  Practice. — The  Secretary  of 
State. — His  Duties. — Assistant  Secretaries. — Bureaux. 
—Law  Officer. — Ceremonial. — Knowledge  of  French. 
—  Secrecy. —  Efficiency.  —  Economy. —  Salaries. —  So- 
cial Duties  of  the  Secretary. — The  .Senate. — Treaty- 
making  Power. — Questions  about  Rights  of  Lower 
House. — Powers  of  Committees. — Appropriations. — 
How  passed. — Evil  System. — Change  of  Rules. — Re- 
lations of  the  Secretary  to  Congress.— Publications. — 
Consular  Reports.  —  Diplomatic  Despatches.  —  Ar- 
chives         3 

n.— OUR   CONSULAR   SYSTEM. 

Origin  of  Consuls. — History  of  our  System. — Law  of  1856. 
— Consular  Duties. — Invoices. — Accounts. — Reports. 
— Consular  Jurisdiction,  Civil  and  Criminal. — Need 
of  Reorganizing  Consular  Courts. — Examples  of  Hard- 
working Consulates. — Consular  Privileges. — Qualifica- 
tions for  Consuls. — Examinations. — Consuls  should  not 
be  Merchants  or  Foreigners. — Grades  of  Consular 
Officers. — Salaries.— Fees.— Allowances. — British  and  ^ 
French  Systems. — Need  of  Reform 41 

IIL— DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS. 

Diplomacy,  its  Significance  and  Intention. — Rank  of  Rep- 
resentatives.—Rules   of  Vienna. — Ambassadors   and 


CONTENTS. 


Ministers. — Reasons  for  Sending  Ambassadors. — Eti- 
quette at  Foreign  Offices. — Detrimental  Custom  at 
Constantinople. — Ministers  Plenipotentiary  and  Min-  - 
isters  Resident. — Objections  to  our  Practice. — A  Sin- 
gle Class  of  Ministers  Preferable. — Suggested  Change 
in  the  Rules  of  Vienna. — Commissioners. — Diplomatic 
Agents. — Secretaries  and  Attaches. — Qualifications  for 
Diplomatists. — French  the  Language  of  Diplomacy. — 
Naturalized  Citizens. — Negroes. — Clerical  Diploma- 
tists.— Appointments. — Letters  of  Credence. — Request 
for  Acceptance. — Etiquette  of  Reception. — The  Ques- 
tion of  Diplomatic  Uniform. — Social  Duties. — Their 
Advantages. — Hospitality  to  Americans. — Lord  Pal- 
merston's  Views. — Mr.  Monroe. — Mr.  Schroeder. — 
Effect  of  the  Social  Isolation  of  a  Minister. — Duties 
at  a  Legation. — Despatches.— Complaints. — Natural- 
ized Citizens. — Commercial  Questions. — Requests  for 
Presentation  at  Court. — Necessity  of  Resident  Min- 
isters.— Lord  Palmerston's  Opinion. — Union  of  Diplo- 
matic and  Consular  Functions. — Relative  Importance 
of  Missions. — Salaries. — Allowances. — Outfits 105 


IV.— THE   PIRATICAL   BARBARY    POWERS. 

Necessity  of  Protecting  Merchant  Vessels  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean.— Our  Situation  after  the  Revolution. — Appli- 
cation to  France. — Mr.  Adams  and  the  Tripoline 
Ambassador. — Adams  for  Tribute,  Jefferson  for  War. 

—  Treaty  with  Morocco. —  Lamb  at  Algiers. —  The 
Mathurins. — Effect  upon  us  of  the  Peace  between 
Portugal  and  Algiers. — The  American  Captives. — 
Donaldson's  Treaty  with  Algiers  in  1795. — Its  Cost. 
— The  Dey. — Treaty  with  Tripoli. — Eaton's  Negotia- 
tions with  Tunis. — War  with  Tripoli. — Lear's  Treaty. 

—  War  with  Algiers. —  Decatur. —  Lord  Exmouth. — 
New  Treaty  with  the  United  States  in  18 16 193 


CONTENTS,  xi 


v.— THE   RIGHT   OF    SEARCH   AND    THE 
SLAVE-TRADE. 

PAGE 

Negro  Slavery. — Prohibition  of  the  Slave-trade. — English 
Feeling  and  English  Interests. — The  Right  of  Search. 
— English  Treaties. — The  Police  of  the  Seas. — Treaty 
of  Ghent. —  Lord  Castlereagh's  Propositions. — Mr. 
Adams'  Reply.  —  The  Slave-trade  Piracy.  —  Rush's 
Treaty. — Canning's  Objections  to  the  Amendments. 
—  Mr.  Adams'  Explanation.  —  Attempt  to  Execute 
Treaties  by  a  British  Statute. — The  British  Claim  to 
Search  American  Vessels. — Lord  Aberdeen. — Tyler's 
Message. — The  Quintuple  Treaty. — General  Cass. — 
Lord  Brougham. — The  Ashburton  Treaty. — Cass  and 
Webster. — Opinions  of  Publicists. — Brazil. — Renewed 
Vigor. — General  Cass  and  Lord  Napier. — British  Out- 
rages in  1858. — Debate  in  Parliament. — The  English 
Claim  Withdrawn. — Mr.  Seward's  Treaty  of  1862. — 
Additional  Treaty  of  1870 233 

VI.— THE   FREE   NAVIGATION    OF    RIVERS 
AND  SEAS. 

^.— THE  MISSISSIPPI. 

Mr.  Jay's  Negotiations  in  Spain  in  1780. — Our  Claim. — 
Gardoqui  in  America. — Different  Views  of  the  North- 
ern and  Southern  States  about  the  Importance  of  the 
Mississippi. — Carmichael  and  Short  at  Madrid. — Ob- 
jections to  them. — Thomas  Pinckney  sent  to  Madrid. 
— Treaty  of  1795. — Godoy's  Opinion. — Spanish  Protest 
against  our  Treaty  with  Great  Britain. — Incident  of 
1802. — Final  Settlement  by  the  Acquisition  of  Louisi- 
ana and  the  Floridas 265 

Z?.— THE   ST.    LAWRENCE. 

Petition  from  New  York. — Instructions  to  Mr.  Rush. — 
Reply  of  Great  Britain  to  our  Claim  of  Free  Navi- 
gation.— Mr.  Clay's  Arguments. — Mr.  Gallatin's  Opin- 


XI 1  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

ions. — Suspension  of  Negotiations. — Treaty  of  1854. — 
Treaty  of  1871,  Granting  the  Right  Forever 282 

C— THE  NORTH   PACIFIC   OCEAN. 

American  Enterprise  in  the  Pacific. — The  Russian-Amer- 
ican Company. — The  Russian  Ukase  of  1821. — Nego- 
tiations.— Treaty  of  1824. — Further  Proposals. — Pub- 
lic Opinion. —Negotiations  of  1834. — Treaty  of  1867 
ceding  Russian  America 292 

Z>.— THE   SOUND   DUES. 

Origin  of  these  Dues. — Tariff  of  Christianople. — Clay. — 
Wheaton. — Webster's  Report. — Burden  upon  Trade. 
— Upshur's  Report. — Buchanan's  Instructions  to  Flen- 
niken— Our  Proposition  for  Compensation. — Its  With- 
drawal by  Mr.  Marcy. — Our  Notice  to  Terminate 
our  Treaty. — Danish  Proposition  for  Capitalization. — 
President  Pierce's  Message. — European  Congress. — 
Treaty  of  Capitalization. — Our  Separate  Treaty 306 

^.— THE   BOSPHORUS  AND   THE  DARDANELLES. 
The  Bosphorus  and  the  Dardanelles 317 

/^.— THE   RIVER   PLATE. 

River  Systems  of  South  America. — European  Intervention 
at  Buenos  Ayres. — Decree  of  Urquiza. — Treaty  of  San 
Jos6  de  Flores. — Difficulties. — Solution  of  Mr.  Schenck. 
— Opposition  of  Brazil. — The  Water  Witch. — Trouble 
with  Paraguay 319 

G.— THE  AMAZON. 

Our  Treaty  with  Peru  of  1 851.— Brazilian  Intrigues. — Mr. 
Randolph  Clay's  Negotiations. — Bolivian  Decree. — 
Peruvian  River  Ports  Opened. — Intrigues  at  Lima.— 
England  and  France. — Mr.  Marcy 's  Reply  to  the  Bra- 


CONTENTS.  xiii 

PACE 

zilian  Minister. — His  Instructions  to  Mr.  Trousdale. — 
President  Pierce's  Message. — Peru  Changes  Face  and 
Accepts  Brazilian  Doctrines, — Abrogation  of  Treaty 
with  Peru. — Treaty  with  Bolivia. — Trousdale  at  Rio 
Janeiro. — Brazilian  Decree  of  1866,  Opening  the  Ama- 
zon.— Peruvian  Decree 329 


A^.— EUROPEAN    RIVERS. 

The  Scheldt. — French  Efforts  for  Free  Navigation. — Trea- 
ties of  Paris  and  Vienna. — The  Rhine. — The  Scheldt. 
— The  Elbe. — The  Danube. — Congress  of  Paris. — Ri- 
parian Commission. —The  European  Commission. — 
Treaties  of  1871  and  1878. — Proposed  Mixed  Com- 
mission.— Roumanian  Objections. — The  Barrere  Pro- 
posal.— Course  of  Russia. — Conference  of  London  of 
1883. — Results 345 

/—THE  CONGO   AND   THE   NIGER. 
The  Congo  and  the  Niger 364 

VII.— NEUTRAL   RIGHTS. 

Subjection  of  Neutrals. — Our  Treaty  with  France  of  1778. 
— Armed  Neutrality  of  1780.— Its  Origin.— Our  Trea- 
ties with  the  Netherlands,  Sweden,  and  Prussia. — 
Franklin's  Ideas.— John  Quincy  Adams  and  the  Re- 
newal of  the  Prussian  Treaty. — Our  Negotiations  of 
1823  to  Preserve  Private  Property  from  Capture  at 
Sea. — Letters  of  Marque.  —  Privateering. — Declara- 
tions of  1854.— Our  Reply.— Treaty  with  Russia.— 
President  Pierce's  Message. — Declaration  of  Paris  of 
1856. — The  Marcy  Amendment. — Opinions  of  other 
Powers. — English  Opposition. — Cessation  of  Negotia- 
tions under  President  Buchanan. — Proposal  of  Mr. 
Seward.  —  Its  Rejection.  —  European  Wars.  —  Our 
Treaty  with  Italy  of  187 1 » 367 


XIV  CONTENTS. 


VIII.— THE   FISHERIES. 

PAGE 

Treaty  of  1783.— Treaty  of  Ghent.— Our  Contention. — 
Treaty  of  181 8. — Difficulties,  Complaints,  and  Seiz- 
ures.— Diplomatic  Correspondence. — Treaty  of  1854. 
— Its  Abrogation. — New  Difficulties. — Treaty  of  187 1. 
— The  Halifax  Award. — Abrogation  of  Treaty. — Tem- 
porary Prolongation  of  Privileges. — Present  State  of 
the  Question 404 

IX.— COMMERCIAL   TREATIES. 

General  Commercial  Treaties. — The  Most  Favored  Na- 
tion.—  Special  Commercial  Treaties.  —  Changes  in 
Commerce. — Our  Earliest  Treaties. — Commercial  Re- 
lations and  Negotiations  with  Great  Britain. — Treat- 
ies of  1794,  1806,  and  181 5. — Reciprocity  Treaty  of 
1854. — Mr.  Wheaton's  Negotiations  with  the  German 
Zollverein. — Advantageous  Treaty  Rejected  by  the 
Senate.— The  Mexican  Treaty  of  1859.— That  of  1883. 
— The  Hawaiian  Treaty. — The  recent  Treaty  with 
Spain. — Postal  Conventions 421 

Index 459 


PART  1. 

# 

Our  Consular  and  Diplomatic  Service. 


,    "^  or    THE  ^■. 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE. 

Constitutional  Theory  and  Practice. — The  Secretary  of  State. 
— His  Duties. — Assistant  Secretaries. — Bureaux. — Law  Of- 
ficer.— Ceremonial. — Knowledge  of  French. — Secrecy. — 
Efficiency. — Economy. — Salaries. — Social  Duties  of  the 
Secretary. — The  Senate. — Treaty-making  Power.— Ques- 
tions about  Rights  of  Lower  House. — Powers  of  Commit- 
tees.— Appropriations. — How  passed. — Evil  System. — 
Change  of  Rules. — Relations  of  the  Secretary  to  Con- 
gress.— Publications. — Consular  Reports. — Diplomatic  De- 
spatches— Archives. 

If  we  were  to  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  an  in- 
telligent foreign  diplomatist,  anxious  to  discover  for 
his  own  purposes  who  were  the  real  depositaries  of 
power  in  the  United  States  ;  if  we  could  lay  aside  for 
a  while  the  "  literary  theory  "  of  our  Constitution  and 
of  its  working,  which  has  been  taught  to  us  from 
childhood,  and  look  only  at  the  practice  of  our  repre- 
sentative institutions,  as  they  have  been  modified, 
and,  as  it  were,  solidified  during  the  last  twenty-five 
years ;  if  we  should  study  the  facts  alone,  as  if  there 
were  no  written  Constitution,  we  should  find  that,  in 
the  last  analysis,  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  in  ordinary  peaceful  and  uneventful  times,  is 


4  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

a  nearly  irresponsible  despotism,  composed  of  five  or 
}^x''men,'',woirI^/?it  J^nder  and  through  constitutional 
.fprin^^,, ape},, Subject  cmly  to  the  penalty  which  is  al- 
.'w^ays'' exacted "ioWeiy  grave  mistakes.  These  six 
men  are  the  President  of  the  United  States,  who  is, 
it  is  true,  elected  by  the  people,  but  only  from  two  or 
three  candidates  proposed  by  partisan  conventions  as 
the  result  of  intrigue  or  of  the  failure  of  intrigue  ;  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
named  by  the  President  as  his  colleagues  and  asso- 
ciates, rather  than  his  advisers  and  servants,  con- 
firmed by  the  Senate,  which  never  refuses  its  ap- 
proval except  for  cause  of  the  most  scandalous 
nature,  or  for  reasons  of  extreme  partisan  feeling ; 
the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  who  is 
elected  as  such  by  his  fellow-Congressmen  at  the  dic- 
tation of  a  clique  or  as  the  result  of  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  factions  and  the  personal  ambitions  of  the 
dominant  party  ;  the  Chairman  of  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  and  the  Chairman  of  the 
Standing  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  both  appointed  by  the 
Speaker,  leading  men  in  Congress,  and  generally  his 
rivals  for  the  Speakership. 

In  time  of  war  or  internal  disorder  additions 
would  necessarily  be  made  to  this  list,  both  from  the 
Cabinet  officers  and  the  chairmen  of  committees,  for 
other  branches  of  the  service  would  necessarily  rise  to 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  5 

prominence.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  no  other 
persons  have  power  or  importance,  but  these  are  the 
chief  depositaries  of  power,  and  without  the  consent 
of  one,  two,  or  three  of  these  men  no  important  step 
in  public  affairs  can  be  taken. 

There  may  be  times  when,  through  fear  of  derang- 
ing the  revenue  system,  or  for  other  reasons,  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  may 
voluntarily  abdicate,  as  it  were,  and  give  up  any  active 
power ;  and  although  in  the  last  fortnight  of  a  Con- 
gressional session  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations  is  virtually  dictator,  yet  he  may,  and 
sometimes  does,  meet  with  a  sharp  and  sudden  check. 

It  is  impossible  here  to  explain  the  causes  which 
have  brought  about  this  state  of  things  and  have  pro- 
duced this  grave  conflict  between  actual  practice  and 
constitutional  theory,  except  to  say  in  brief  that  it  is 
chiefly  due  to  the  operation  of  the  rules  of  Congress  reg- 
ulating the  transaction  of  public  business  in  that  body.^" 

*  These  causes  have  been  excellently  and  clearly  set  forth  in 
the  recent  book  of  Mr.  Woodrow  Wilson  on  Congressional 
Government.  Mr.  Wilson's  views  in  the  main  coincide 
with  my  own,  which  were  derived  from  study  and  some  per- 
sonal experience  of  the  working  of  our  Government  during  a 
residence  at  Washington  in  1882  and  1885.  As  it  is  disagree- 
able to  mention  names,  I  recommend  to  the  unprejudiced 
reader  a  careful  study  from  this  point  of  view  of  all  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  last  two  Congresses,  especially  the  reports  of 
committees.  Unfortunately  the  real  work,  and  the  methods 
employed,  but  rarely  appear  in  the  printed  reports.  * 


6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

The  Secretary  of  State  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  are  the  only  Cabinet  officers  who,  in  ordi- 
nary times,  can  influence  not  only  the  policy  of  the 
Government,  but  also  the  welfare  of  the  country,  with- 
out the  permission  of  Congress,  nay,  even  without,  it 
may  be,  the  knowledge  of  the  President.  The  pres- 
ent delicate  relations  of  the  currency  question,  the 
silver  coinage,  the  position  taken  up  at  times  by  the 
Clearing  House  at  New  York,  the  state  of  the  gold 
market — the  mere  mention  of  these  is  enough  to 
show  how  a  sudden  emergency  may  induce,  if  not 
compel  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  adopt  a  course 
of  action  which  may  strongly  affect  for  good  or  for 
bad  the  most  vital  interests  of  the  nation. 

So  with  the  Secretary  of  State.  By  hasty  action, 
by  an  intemperate  or  ill-timed  insistence  on  national 
or  individual  rights,  by  even  a  want  of  tact  or  a  hasty 
word,  he,  or  the  agents  under  his  control,  may  cause 
an  irritation  hard  to  be  appeased,  may  embroil  us 
with  other  powers,  may  involve  us  in  the  political 
complications  of  other  continents,  or  may  bring  upon 
us  all  the  evils  of  a  foreign  war.  By  an  ignorance  of 
precedent,  by  an  unguarded  admission,  by  an  act  of 
good  nature,  or  in  an  impulsive  moment,  he  may  give 
up  rights  that  we  have  jealously  claimed  for  a  century, 
or  which  we  hold  in  reserve  for  future  use. 

By  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty  he  may,  if  the  mo- 
ment be  well  chosen,  draw  the  country  into  a  scheme 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  J 

of  annexation,  saddle  us  with  a  colony  or  the  protec- 
torate of  a  distant  country,  or  begin  a  new,  and  per- 
haps beneficial  course  of  commercial  policy. 

In  all  probability,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  past,  the 
Secretary  of  State  will  do  none  of  these  things.  He 
has  been  more  carefully  selected  than  any  other  public 
officer.  Generally  a  statesman  of  high  rank  or  of 
long  experience,  frequently  a  shrewd  and  cautious 
lawyer  into  the  bargain,  he  has  been  too  prudent  to 
go  a  step  further  than  where  he  has  felt  the  ground 
entirely  sure.  Sometimes  he  has  not  learned  that  it 
was  possible  or  useful  for  the  United  States  to  have  a 
foreign  policy,  or  that  we  had  interests  beyond  the 
bounds  of  our  own  domain,  until  the  expiring  months 
of  his  administration  warned  him  that  it  was  too  late 
to  begin  a  new  line  of  policy.  So  far  we  have  erred 
more  from  extreme  prudence  than  from  rashness. 

Still  the  possibilities  of  what  an  enterprising  and 
inexperienced  Secretary,  ignorant  of  foreign  countries, 
might  do  for  us,  unless  he  were  surrounded  by  thor- 
oughly trained  and  skilled  subordinates,  are  such  as  to 
make  this  branch  of  our  Government  worthy  of  special 
study. 

The  Department  of  State  was  among  the  earliest  of 
the  great  divisions  of  the  administration  created  by 
Congress  in  1789,  for  facilitating  public  business,  and 
during  the  first  forty  years  of  our  national  existence 
was  in  reality,  as  it  still  is  in  rank,  the  leading  depart- 


8  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ment  of  the  Government.  Our  foreign  policy  was  at 
that  time  of  far  more  consequence  to  the  country  than 
our  domestic  policy.  We  still  had  to  struggle,  if  not 
for  our  existence,  at  least  for  our  position  and  our  na- 
tional rights.  The  Secretary  of  State  was,  therefore, 
the  leading  statesman  of  the  party,  and  he  was  almost 
sure  of  succeeding  to  the  Presidency.  Our  foreign  re- 
lations were,  on  the  whole,  well  managed,  and  while 
we  did  not  carry  all  the  points  we  tried  to  win,  we 
gained  some  great  successes  then  and  since.  Several 
of  our  earlier  and  best  Secretaries  of  State  had  had 
the  benefit  of  personal  experience  in  the  diplomatic 
service  abroad,  such  as  Jefferson,  Marshall,  Monroe, 
.  John  Quincy  Adams,  and  Clay.  This  has  happened 
''since  only  in  the  cases  of  Buchanan,  Everett,  and  Cass. 
Probably  the  worst  Secretary  we  have  ever  had,  was 
the  one  who  remained  the  shortest  time  in  office ;  but 
who,  in  the  course  of  six  days  removed  the  greater 
number  of  consular  and  diplomatic  officers,  filled  their 
places  with  new  and  inexperienced  men,  appointed 
solely  for  partisan  political  services,  and  did  harm  that 
it  took  his  successor  nearly  eight  years  to  remedy.* 

*  The  following  list  of  Secretaries  of  State  may  be  con- 
venient : 

Secretaries  of  State.  Presidents. 

1789,  Sept.  26.     Thomas  Jefferson,  Virginia.      Geo.  Washington 

1794.  Jan.     2.    Edmund  Randolph,  Virginia.     Geo.  Washington 

1795,  Dec.  10.    Timothy  Pickering,  Pa.  j  ^q'^hn  YdIms'''''^'''' 
1800,  May  13.    John  Marshall,  Virginia.  John  Adams 


THE  DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE. 


The  Secretary  of  State  is  charged  not  only  with  the 
supervision  and  management  of  all  the  foreign  rela- 
tions of  the  United  States,  but  he  has,  in  addition, 
duties  which  in  other  countries  are  generally  given  to 
the  Keeper  of  the  Seals  or  to  the  Minister  of  Justice, 
such  as  the  keeping,  promulgation,  and  publication  of 
the  laws,  the  custody  of  the  Great  Seal,  and  the  pres- 


I80I, 

Mar. 

S- 

1809, 

Mar. 

6. 

i8ii, 

April 

2. 

1817, 

Mar. 

5- 

1825, 

Mar. 

7. 

1829, 

Mar. 

6. 

1831, 

May  24. 

1833, 

May 

29. 

1834,  June 

27. 

1841, 

Mar. 

5. 

1843. 

May 

24. 

1843. 

July 

24. 

.  1844. 

Feb, 

29. 

1844, 

Mar. 

6. 

1845, 

Mar. 

6. 

1849. 

Mar. 

7- 

1850,  July 

22. 

*  1852, 

Nov. 

6. 

1853, 

Mar. 

7- 

1857, 

Mar. 

6. 

i860, 

Dec. 

17. 

j86i, 

Mar. 

5. 

.  -»  *  1869, 

Mar. 

5. 

1869, 

Mar. 

II. 

1877, 

Mar. 

12. 

1881, 

Mar. 

5- 

1881, 

Dec. 

T2. 

1885, 

Mar. 

6. 

Secretaries  of  State. 
James  Madison,  Virginia. 
Robert  Smith,  Maryland. 
James  Monroe,  Virginia. 
John  Quincy  Adams,  Mass. 
Henry  Clay,  Kentucky. 
Martin  Van  Buren,  N.  Y. 
Edward  Livingston,  La. 
Louis  McLane,  Delaware. 

John  Forsyth,  Georgia. 

Daniel  Webster,  Mass. 

Hugh  S.  Legar:6,  S.  C.  ud  int. 

Abel  P.  Upshur,  Virginia 

John  Nelson,  Md.  ad  interium.   John  Tyler 


Presidents. 
Thomas  Jefferson 
James  Madison 
James  Madison 
James  Monroe 
John  Quincy  Adams 
Andrew  Jackson 
Andrew  Jackson 
Andrew  Jackson 
Andrew  Jackson 
Martin  Van  Buren 
Wm.  H.  Harrison'*' 
John  Tyler 
John  Tyler 
John  Tyler 


John  C.  Calhoun,  S.  C. 
James  Buchanan,  Pa. 

John  M.  Clayton,  Delaware 

Daniel  Webster,  Mass. 
Edward  Everett,  Mass. 
William  L.  Marcy,  N.  Y. 
Lewis  Cass,  Michigan. 
Jeremiah  S.  Black,  Pa. 

William  H.  Seward,  N.  Y. 


John  Tyler 
James  K.  Polk 
(  Zachary  Taylor 
(  Millard  Fillmore 
Millard  Fillmore 
Millard  Fillmore 
Franklin  Pierce 
James  Buchanan 
James  Buchanan 
j  Abraham  Lincoln 
I  Andrew  Johnson 
U.  S.  Grant 
U.  S.  Grant 
R.  B.  Hayes 
j  J.  A.  Garfield 
(  Chester  A.  Arthur 
Fred.  T.  Frelinghuysen,  N.  J.  Chester  A.  Arthur 
ThomasJ?.  Bayard,  Delaware.    Grover  Cleveland 


Elihu  B.  Washburne,  Illinois. 
Hamilton  Fish,  New  York. 
William  M.  Evarts,  N.  Y. 

James  G.  Blaine,  Maine. 


10  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

ervatlon  of  the  Government  archives,  as  well  as  the 
charge  of  all  official  relations  between  the  general 
Government  and  the  several  States. 

Of  the  three  Assistant  Secretaries,  the  first  is  con- 
sidered as  a  political  officer,  in  the  full  confidence  of 
his  chief,  able  to  advise  with  him,  and  even  at  times 
to  replace  him  ;  the  other  two,  by  custom  and  necessity, 
have  become  permanent  officials.  Even  in  our  chang- 
ing service  the  need  of  experience  and  special  knowl- 
edge has  at  times  more  force  than  the  demands  of 
politicians.* 

These  Assistant  Secretaries  take  charge  of  special 
branches  of  the  foreign  correspondence,  under  the  gen- 
eral supervision  of  the  Secretary,  although  the  rela- 
tions with  foreign  ministers  resident  in  Washington 
are  conducted  by  the  Secretary  in  person,  if  he  be 
able  to  converse  with  them,  for  not  all  foreign  min- 
isters come  to  America  knowing  English,  and  those 
from  South  America  do  not  always  speak  French, 
and  not  all  Secretaries  of  State  understand  any  other 
language  than  English. 

For  the  convenient  despatch  of  business  the  De- 
partment is  divided   into  several   bureaux — the   Di- 
plomatic Bureau  ;  the  Consular  Bureau  ;  that  charged* 
with  the  accounts  of  the  Department  and  of  all  the 

*  Mr.  William  Hunter,  the  present  Second  Assistant  Secre- 
tary, has  been  in  continuous  service  in  the  State  Department 
for  more  than  fifty- five  years. 


THE  DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE,  II 

subordinate  officials,  which  also  takes  care  of  the  build- 
ing and  property  of  the  Department  and  of  all  in- 
demnity funds,  bonds,  and  other  money ;  the  Bureau 
of  Rolls  and  of  the  Library,  charged  with  the  keep- 
ing and  preservation  of  all  the  archives  of  the  Depart- 
ment, among  which  are  included  the  revolutionary 
archives,  some  of  which  were  formerly  kept  in  other 
departments,  the  laws  as  they  come  from  Congress, 
and  other  documents  ;  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  which 
devotes  itself  chiefly  to  the  preparation  of  the  con- 
sular, commercial,  and  statistical  reports  in  a  form  for 
publication. 

Another  very  important  Bureau  is  that  of  Law, 
lich  is  under  the  charge  of  an  official  nominally  de- 
taHed  from  the  Department  of  Justice,  and  which  ex- 
aftiinfes,  when  directed  by  the  Secretary,  all  pending 
questions  of  international  law  submitted  by  the  Sec- 
retary, and  all  international  claims.  It  corresponds 
to  whit  is  known  in  most  Foreign  Offices  as  the  Bureau 
de-  Contentieux,  In  England  the  head  of  this  depart- 
ment, isl  o'^e  of  the  permanent  Under-Secretaries  of 
State-;  and  in  th^re  organization  of  our  Stat6  Depart- 
ment, which  must  come  sooner  or  later,  it  would  be 
well  if  the  functions  of  the  Solicitor,  or  Examiner  of 
Claims,  his  technical  title,  could  be  combined  with 
those  of  Assistant  Secretary.  In  the  past  this  bureau 
has  sometimes  been  negligently  managed ;  its  incum- 
bent should  not  only  be  an  able  international  lawyer, 

university] 


12  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

like  the  learned  gentleman  who  has  consented  to  take 
charge  of  this  work  now ;  but  he  should  hold  a  per- 
manent position,  so  as  to  enable  him  to  keep  the  track 
of  claims,  sometimes  ill-founded,  which  after  being  re- 
jected under  one  administration  are  sure  to  be  brought 
forward  under  another;  and  he  should  have  salary 
and  position  enough  to  keep  him  from  the  temptations 
sometimes  offered  by  suitors  who  have  large  claims 
against  foreign  governments. 

The  Index  Bureau  has  charge  of  the  current  records 
of  the  Department.  Every  despatch  received  is  sent 
there  as  soon  as  opened,  and  before  it  is  acted  upon, 
in  order  to  be  registered,  indexed,  and  cross-indexed, 
and  so  marked  that  it  may  be  found  with  ease  and 
cannot  be  lost  or  mislaid.  Letters  and  despatches 
from  the  Department  are,  in  the  same  way,  press- 
copied,  registered,  and  indexed  before  being  sent  out. 
In  one  way  this  bureau  is  the  key  to  the  whole  sys- 
tem, for  without  it  all  would  be  confusion.  As  to  the 
Passport  Clerk,  the  Pardons  and  Commissions  Clerk, 
the  Translator,  the  Telegraph  and  Mail  Clerks,  it  is 
sufficient  to  mention  their  names  to  understand  their 
duties.  The  routine  of  business  is  carried  on  much  in 
the  same  way  as  in  other  departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment, or  as  in  the  Foreign  Offices  of  other  countries. 

But  eminently  conservative  as  the  State  Depart- 
ment is  in  its  forms  of  communication,  and  especially 
in  "the  addresses  of  its  letters— an  American  Minister, 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  I3 

for  instance,  being  never  styled  "  Honorable,"  but  only 

,  Esq.,  etc., — we  may  notice  the  absence  of 

any  bureau  specially  charged  with  questions  of  cere- 
monial and  precedence,  an  important  subject  in  inter- 
national dealings,  diplomatic  privileges,  and  etiquette, 
such  as  exists  in  the  Foreign  Offices  of  England, 
France,  and  other  countries.  Since  the  Republic  has 
been  established  in  France,  one  of  the  officials  of  this 
department  (which  is  called  Service  du  Protocole)  is 
also  introducer  of  ambassadors  and  has  charge  of  the 
presentation  of  their  credentials  by  all  foreign  minis- 
ters accredited  to  the  Elysee,  thus  taking  the  place  of 
the  former  Masters  of  Ceremonies.  Now  if  there  were 
one  person  charged  with  this  duty  at  Washington, 
the  State  Department  would  make  fewer  mistakes  of 
etiquette  in  dealing  with  foreign  representatives — 
though  on  the  whole  it  makes  few — and  there  would 
be  no  errors  of  title  in  the  ceremonial  letters  which  it 
is  so  often  necessary  to  send  to  foreign  sovereigns,  or 
the  credentials  or  full  powers.  It  is  manifestly  wrong, 
for  example,  in  a  letter  intended  for  the  King  of  the 
Hellenes  to  style  him  the  "  King  of  Greece,"  and  a 
minister  already  duly  accredited  to  His  Majesty  the 
King  of  Serbia  cannot  present  his  letters  of  recall  ad- 
dressed to  "  His  Highness  the  Prince."  Such  letters 
have  to  be  returned  for  correction,  thus  causing  awk- 
ward delay.  There  are  many  small  questions  of  eti- 
quette coming  up  every  season  in  Washington — invi- 


14  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

tations  to  public  ceremonies,  the  propriety  of  uniform 
on  certain  occasions,  places,  precedence — which  now 
have  to  be  decided  by  the  Chief  Clerk,  who  has  too 
much  else  on  his  hands  always,  to  think  about  these 
petty  details,  unless  they  are  referred  to  him.  I  have 
heard  ofificials  of  the  State  Department  say  that  it 
would  be  far  more  difBcult  for  us  to  receive  than  to 
send  ambassadors,  on  account  of  the  complications  of 
etiquette  which  would  arise,  and  with  which  no  one 
now  could  deal.  An  officer  of  the  kind  here  sug- 
gested would  solve  these  difficulties,  and  would  save 
all  the  rest  from  the  responsibility  which  seems  to 
oppress  them  when  anything  goes  wrong.  He  would, 
however,  lead  a  dog's  life,  unless  he  had  tact  as  well 
as  experience. 

If  I  might  make  one  more  criticism  upon  the  State 
Department,  it  would  be  to  note  the  slight  impor- 
tance given  to  a  knowledge  of  French  in  the  selection 
of  clerks  and  officials.  A  fair  proportion  of  the  clerks 
understand  French,  and  some  Spanish,  also  a  very  use- 
ful language  to  us  ;  but  this  knowledge  is  not  a  require- 
ment for  their  appointment.  Ignorance  of  French, 
which  is  of  prime  importance  in  our  intercourse  with 
foreign  nations,  forces  also  our  consuls  and  ministers 
abroad  to  do  much  useless  work  in  the  way  of  trans- 
lating documents,  which  need  never  be  translated  at 
all,  unless  communicated  to  some  other  department, 
sent    in   to   Congress    or   otherwise    published.      In 


THE  DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  1 5 

nearly  every  Foreign  Office  in  the  world  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  French  is  required  of  every  clerk,  as  a 
preliminary  to  his  appointment.  The  clerks  in  the 
British  Foreign  Office  must,  besides  a  thorough  knowl- 
edge of  French,  have  a  good  knowledge  of  German. 

What  is  most  to  be  remarked  here  is  the  secrecy 
with  which  everything  in  the  State  Department  is 
managed.  This  is  not  only  because  the  officials  are 
usually  careful  and  trustworthy  persons,  but  because 
the  general  public  is,  as  a  rule,  slightly  interested  in 
what  concerns  our  foreign  relations.  It  is  only  when 
some  great  subject  is  in  dispute  that  the  community 
at  large  is  curious  to  know  what  is  going  on.  In 
countries  like  England,  France,  or  Italy,  where  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  or  his  immediate  subordi- 
nate, has  a  place  in  Parliament  and  can  be  Interro- 
gated at  any  time  with  regard  to  particular  questions 
arising  with  foreign  countries,  the  public  is  more  or 
less  informed  as  to  the  state  of  foreign  relations,  even 
though  the  progress  of  negotiations  be  kept  secret. 
Here  the  only  method  for  obtaining  information  on 
such  topics  is  for  either  House  of  Congress,  by  a  reso- 
lution, to  ask  from  the  President  the  papers  on  the 
question,  and  make  an  investigation,  if  considered 
necessary,  by  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs. 
Such  papers  can,  however,  be  always  refused  if  it  be 
thought  that  their  publication  would  be  disadvan- 
tageous to  the  interests  of  the  Government.     It  may 


1 6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

be  safely  asserted  that  there  is  scarcely  a  country, 
even  Russia  or  Germany,  where  so  little  is  known  by 
the  public  of  the  negotiations  carried  on  at  any  one 
time  by  the  Secretary  of  State.  This  has  very  great 
advantages,  as  it  enables  the  Government  to  conduct 
with  tranquillity  a  negotiation  which  may  be  ex- 
tremely necessary,  and  often  to  settle  disputes  which, 
if  public  opinion  were  excited,  might  result  in  a 
breach  of  friendly  relations.  This  country  was  prob- 
ably never  so  near  a  war  with  England,  since  the  time 
of  the  Trent  affair  in  1861,  as  it  was  about  three 
years  ago  with  regard  to  arbitrary  arrests  in  Ireland. 
But  owing  to  the  secrecy,  as  well  as  the  skill,  with 
which  negotiations  were  conducted  the  newspapers 
and  the  public  knew  little  about  it  until  it  was  all  over. 
It  is  just  this  noiseless  and  quiet  despatch  of  busi- 
ness which  deceives  many  persons  as  to  the  amount 
of  work  transacted  by  the  State  Department.  Be- 
cause little  is  said  it  is  thought  that  little  is  done. 
Besides  the  ordinary  routine  work,  a  question  asked 
in  Congress  frequently  causes  a  month  of  hard  labor 
in  preparing  digested  commercial  or  statistical  infor- 
mation, or  in  copying  hundreds  of  pages  of  docu- 
ments. Clerks  not  rarely  work  till  late  at  night,  and 
all  day  on  Sunday.  The  hardest  work  of  all,  in  one 
sense,  falls  on  that  much-abused  official,  the  Chief 
Clerk,  who  has  to  sit  in  a  public  room,  accessible 
to  every  one  ;  must  inspect  every  paper  that  comes  in 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  \J 

or  goes  out ;  must  carry  in  his  head  the  whole  business 
of  the  Department  in  all  its  details ;  must  see  every 
one  who  calls,  assist  those  who  have  legitimate  busi- 
ness, listen  to  the  others  and  give  them  a  soft  answer 
but  no  information,  and  withal  be  patient  and  keep 
his  temper. 

Indeed  the  efficiency  of  the  State  Department  is,  to 
those  who  know  it,  as  remarkable  as  its  economy. 
Hampered  as  it  is  by  niggardly  appropriations,  all  the 
expenses  within  its  control  are  reduced  to  the  lowest 
possible  figure,  and  every  penny  spent,  and  every  fee 
received,  are  rigorously  accounted  for.  Probably 
since  the  war  no  other  department  of  the  Govern- 
ment has  been  so  economically  and  so  honestly  ad- 
ministered as  this.  During  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1884,  the  total  expense  of  the  Diplomatic 
and  Consular  Service  was  nominally  $1,288,355.28; 
but  as  the  fees  received  amounted  to  $899,652.67,  the 
real  expense  to  the  nation  was  only  $388,702.61,  or 
less  than  $400,000.  About  as  much  more  was  ex- 
pended in  the  Alabama  and  French  Claims  Com- 
missions, the  Bimetallic,  etc.,  Commissions,  various 
Foreign  Expositions,  Electric  and  other ;  while  the 
salaries  of  all  the  officials  in  the  Department,  even  in- 
cluding the  watchmen  and  laborers,  amounted  to 
only  $127,290.  The  expenses  of  the  British  Foreign 
office  and  Foreign  Service  amounted,  in  the  same 
year,  to  $3,205,748,  and  of  the  French  to  $2,883,362. 


1 8  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

The  salary  of  the  Secretary  of  State  is  $8,000,  that 
of  the  Assistant  Secretary,  $4,500,  and  that  of  the 
Second  and  Third  Assistant  Secretaries,  $3,500.  In  the 
present  conditions  of  life  at  Washington  these  salaries 
are  all  too  small.  Owing  to  the  climate,  and  to  the 
pleasantness  of  the  capital,  there  has  been  recently  a 
great  influx  of  strangers,  and  it  has  become  fashion- 
able to  pass  the  winter  there.  This  has  naturally 
brought  about  a  great  increase  in  rents,  in  prices,  and 
in  the  general  cost  of  living.  For  a  long  time  it  has 
been  impossible  for  a  man  to  accept  the  office  of  Sec- 
retary of  State,  unless  he  should  have  an  independent 
fortune.  His  salary  has  been  barely  sufficient  to  cover 
the  additional  expenses  necessitated  by  his  position. 
There  is  no  use  of  blinking  at  the  truth.  Whatever 
our  theory,  whatever  our  desires  may  be,  the  fact  re- 
mains that  "  society,"  with  the  tastes,  amusements, 
and  expensive  habits  of  "society,"  exists  in  Wash- 
ington ;  that  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  the  natural 
representative  of  the  President,  who  in  our  theory  is 
relegated  to  the  White  House,  is  called  upon  to  play, 
and  actually  does  play,  a  considerable  part  in  "  society." 
If  the  other  members  of  the  Cabinet  entertain,  they 
do  it  at  their  good  pleasure  ;  but  it  is  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  that  Washington — and  in  the  winter  Wash- 
ington now  represents  the  nation — looks  for  entertain- 
ments. He  may  possibly  try  to  avoid  these  duties 
thrust  upon  him ;  but  most  men  would  rather  borrow 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  1 9 

or  beg,  than  go  down  to  posterity  with  the  reputa- 
tion of  parsimony  and  meanness.  To  come  down  to 
details,  the  President,  except  at  state  dinners,  gives 
nothing  but  spectacles,  and  does  not  offer  his  guests 
even  a  glass  of  water.  There  may  be  substantial 
reasons  for  this,  and  yet  when  these  reasons  come  to 
be  examined  they  may  turn  out  merely  superficial 
excuses  for  bad  management  and  bad  manners.  The 
whole  burden  of  entertaining — for  food  and  drink, 
as  we  all  know,  cost  money — falls  upon  the  Secretary 
of  State  as  the  President's  representative.  But  apart 
from  domestic  considerations,  there  are  what  might 
be  called  international  obligations ;  and,  whatever 
may  be  our  faults,  we  do  not  like  to  be  deficient  in 
hospitality.  Even  reciprocity  is  sometimes  a  virtue. 
In  European  capitals,  where  the  society  is  generally 
so  large  that  a  foreign  minister  makes  his  way  solely 
through  his  agreeable  qualities,  and  not  through  his 
official  position,  which  merely  gives  him  an  entry  to 
the  society,  the  house  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs is  pre-eminently  the  place  where  foreign  diplomats 
can  meet  the  local  society  and  can  become  acquainted 
with  the  ministers  and  chief  officials  of  the  country  ; 
and  where  also,  for  there  is  a  mutuality  in  the  case, 
the  officials,  and  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  him- 
self, can  get  better  acquainted  with  the  diplomatists 
than  is  possible  in  formal  official  interviews.  To 
transact  business  well,  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  knowl- 


20  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

edge  of  the  man  you  are  talking  to ;  and  this  can  be 
gained  only  by  social  intercourse.  It  must  be  ad- 
mitted that  there  is  less  necessity  of  this  in  Wash- 
ington than  in  most  capitals,  for  there  are  few  places, 
if  any,  where  diplomats  receive  so  much  social  atten- 
tion as  with  us.  Still,  it  is  necessary  and  proper  for 
us,  in  the  person  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  officially 
to  reciprocate  the  courtesies  shown  to  our  representa- 
tives abroad.  These  considerations  apply  also,  though 
in  a  less  degree,  to  the  Assistant  Secretaries.  They 
should  be  able  to  take  some  of  the  social  burden  off 
the  back  of  their  chief.  It  is  just  this  representative 
character  toward  foreign  nations  which  renders  it 
necessary  to  select  the  chief  officials  of  the  State  De- 
partment with  more  care,  and  to  remunerate  them 
more  highly  than  is  necessary  for  the  corresponding 
functionaries  of  other  departments,  whose  duties  are 
purely  domestic.  Other  governments  have  generally 
recognized  this  by  fixing  the  salaries  of  the  Ministers 
of  Foreign  Affairs  and  their  chief  subordinates  on  a 
much  higher  scale  than  for  other  officials.  Their  Min- 
isters often  have  official  residences,  with  every  conven- 
ience for  entertaining  largely,  and  an  addition  to  their 
salaries  in  the  shape  of  "  expenses  of  representation." 

The  Department  of  State  is  not  the  sole  authority 
for  the  administration  of  foreign  affairs,  for  here  comes 
in  the  Senate,  in  certain  capacities,  not  only  for  the 
confirmation  of  the  nominations  to  diplomatic  and 


THE  DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  21 

consular  posts  made  by  the  President,  but  also  for  the 
consideration  and  approval  of  treaties  made  with 
foreign  powers  before  they  can  be  ratified.  Most  con- 
stitutional countries  nowadays  have  a  similar  pro- 
viso, that  treaties  must  be  approved  by  Parliament 
before  ratification.  In  some  countries  even,  as  Spain, 
Italy,  Roumania,  and  others,  both  houses  are  con- 
sulted on  the  subject,  and  discussions  are  public. 
Fortunately  they  can  only  affirm  or  reject  a  treaty ; 
but  owing  to  the  wording  of  the  article  of  our  Consti- 
tution, which  says  that  "  the  President,  with  the  con- 
sent and  advice  of  the  Senate,  shall  conclude  treaties," 
the  Senate  considers  that  it  has  a  right  to  amend  a 
treaty  already  negotiated,  a  practice  which  causes  great 
difficulty,  as  frequently  a  senator,  to  whom  the  subject 
under  discussion  is  not  quite  clear,  insists  on  the  addi- 
tion of  two  or  three  words  to  an  instrument,  which 
produces  a  long  delay,  and  frequently  protracted  ne- 
gotiations. The  practice,  as  we  all  know,  is,  that 
treaties  are  discussed  in  secret  session,  the  theory 
being,  partly,  that  the  Senate  in  this  case  is  acting  as 
a  privy  council  to  the  President,  and  partly  that,  if 
the  debates  were  open,  things  might  be  said  which 
would  be  offensive  to  foreign  governments.  As  to 
this  latter  point,  I  can  only  observe  that  the  practice  of 
debating  a  treaty  in  open  session  has  not  been  found  to 
work  badly  in  those  countries  in  which  it  is  the  habit. 
There  was  from  the  beginning  a  feeling  of  jealousy 


22  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

between  the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  Sen- 
ate, on  the  subject  of  the  treaty  power,  which  has 
manifested  itself  at  various  times  and  has  become  very- 
evident  during  the  last  year,  the  House  maintaining 
that  as  it  alone  is  empowered  to  initiate  measures 
touching  the  revenue,  the  President  has  no  right  to 
negotiate  a  commercial  treaty  without  previously 
consulting  that  body.  It  does  not  seem  that  this 
contention  can  be  supported  by  the  text  of  the  Consti- 
tution ;  but  at  the  same  time  the  practice  of  our  Gov- 
ernment has  so  much  changed  of  recent  years,  in 
giving  continually  larger  and  larger  powers  to  the 
lower  House,  that  it  is  not  without  some  reason  that 
such  a  view  should  be  supported.  A  commercial 
treaty  concluded  with  the  German  Zollverein  was 
rejected  by  the  Senate  in  1844  by  a  strict  party  vote 
of  twenty-six  to  eighteen,  on  the  ostensible  ground 
that  "  the  Legislature  is  the  department  of  Govern- 
ment by  which  commerce  should  be  regulated  and 
laws  of  revenue  passed."  The  true  cause,  according  to 
Mr.  Calhoun,  was  "  the  bearing  which  it  was  feared  it 
would  have  on  the  Presidential  election."  *  No  such 
objections  were  made  to  the  ratification  of  the  Cana- 
dian Reciprocity  Treaty  in  1854,  nor  to  similar  subse- 
quent treaties,  and,  until  the  Spanish  treaty  came  up, 
it  was  thought  that  this  feeling  had  died  out. 

*  See  Lawrence's  Wheaton,  edition   of   1863,   Introductory 
Remarks,  p.  cvii.     Letters  of  Calhoun  of  June  28,  1844. 


THE  DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  23 

Such  disputes,  however,  could  always  be  obviated 
if  the  State  Department,  before  making  a  commercial 
treaty,  and  engaging  the  country  in  a  new  commercial 
system,  should,  as  was  done  in  the  negotiation  of  the 
last  Mexican  treaty,  ask  Congress  for  authority  to 
corkclude  it.  In  all  recent  treaties  a  clause  has  been 
inserted  covering  this  point,  that  the  treaty  is  to  be 
inoperative  until  Congress  has  passed  such  laws  as 
may  be  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect ;  otherwise 
there  would  be  the  disputed  point  that,  according  to 
the  Constitution,  a  treaty  is  superior  to  all  laws  then 
in  force,  and  the  actual  practice  that  the  7nunicipal 
operation  of  a  treaty  may  be  abrogated  by  a  law. 
Cases  have  already  occurred,  for  instance,  with  regard 
to  duties  on  works  of  art  coming  from  Italy,  where 
it  is  claimed  that  the  treaty  is  infringed,  but  where 
Congress  has  been  unwilling  to  pass  a  law  removing  » 
the  duties. 

The  powers  allowed  by  the  Senate  to  its  Standing 
Committees  form  another  obstacle  to  the  ratification 
of  treaties,  as  it  is  impossible,  except  by  an  actual  vote 
of  the  Senate,  to  compel  the  Committee  to  report 
back  to  the  full  Senate  a  treaty  which  has  been  al- 
ready referred  to  it  for  consideration.  I  cite  at  ran- 
dom one  notorious  case  of  this  kind,  where  the  United 
States  made  a  treaty  with  Denmark  for  the  annexa- 
tion of  the  islands  of  Santa  Cruz  and  St.  Thomas. 
Denmark  had  no  particular  desire  to  sell  to  the  United 


24  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

States,  but  was  persuaded  to  do  so.  The  inhabitants 
of  the  islands  had  already  voted  to  accept  the  United 
States  as  their  sovereign.  The  late  Mr.  Charles 
Sumner,  then  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations  of  the  Senate,  who  was  engaged  in  a 
personal  quarrel  with  the  administration,  simply  Te- 
fused  to  report  back  the  treaty  to  the  Senate,  and  he 
was  supported  by  a  sufficient  number  of  his  commit- 
tee and  of  Senators  to  enable  the  matter  to  be  left  in 
this  position.  It  required  new  negotiations  to  pro- 
long the  term  of  ratification,  and  it  was  with  great 
difficulty  that  in  a  subsequent  session  the  treaty  was 
finally  brought  before  the  Senate  and  rejected.  As 
may  be  imagined,  our  friendly  relations  with  Den- 
mark were  considerably  impaired  by  this  method  of 
doing  business. 

Both  the  Senate  and  the  House  have  Committees 
on  Foreign  Affairs.  Practically  these  committees  have 
lately  had  little  to  do,  except  as  to  treaties,  with  the 
conduct  of  our  foreign  relations,  although  formerly 
the  Secretary  of  State  consulted  with  them.  Ques- 
tions arising  with  regard  to  foreign  affairs  in  either 
House  of  Congress  are  generally,  though  not  always, 
referred  to  these  committees.  The  House  Commit- 
tee on  the  Expenditure  of  the  State  Department 
acts  in  theory  simply  as  auditor  of  the  accounts ;  in 
reality  it  does  nothing.  Of  late  years,  and  until  the 
49th  Congress,  the  Senate  and  House  have  practically 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  25 

given  up  all  control  of  the  appropriations,  and  of  the 
salaries  paid  to  diplomatic  and  consular  officers  to  the 
Committees  on  Appropriations,  or  rather  to  subcom- 
mittees of  those  committees,  composed  of  three  per- 
sons in  each  body.  By  law  the  Secretary  of  State  is 
bound  to  send  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  de- 
tailed estimates  of  the  amount  of  money  required  for 
the  conduct  of  his  Department  during  the  ensuing  fis- 
cal year.  These  estimates  are  printed  in  a  thin  quarto 
volume,  together  with  those  of  the  other  Depart- 
ments, under  the  title  of  "  A  Letter  from  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  containing  the  Estimates,"  copies 
of  which  are  sent  to  the  several  Committees  on  Ap- 
propriations, on  or  before  the  beginning  of  each  ses- 
sion. In  the  Senate  all  the  committees  are  elected ; 
in  the  House  they  are  named  by  the  Speaker.  The 
subcommittee  of  three  which  had  charge  of  the  ap- 
propriations for  the  diplomatic  and  consular  service 
was  generally  named  by  the  chairman  of  the  commit- 
tee. The  chairmanships  of  the  Standing  Commit- 
tees are  almost  the  only  honors  which  it  is  possible 
to  obtain  in  Congress,  and  these  only  by  long  ser- 
vice. They  have  their  rights  to  the  floor  and  their 
little  perquisites  in  the  shape  of  clerks  and  commit- 
tee-rooms, and  they  are  therefore  much  sought  after. 
As  the  Speaker  must  make  up  his  committees,  ac- 
cording to  custom,  pretty  equally  among  the  various 
sections  of  the  Union,  and  must,  according  to  prac- 


26  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

tice,  put  on  them  a  certain  number  of  the  minor- 
ity, he  finds  himself  obliged  to  place  the  best  men 
in  the  House  at  the  heads  of  the  various  committees, 
and,  therefore,  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  make  up 
any  one  committee,  no  matter  how  important  of  it- 
self, wholly  of  those  persons  who  are  the  most  experi- 
enced, or  who  have  a  special  knowledge  of  the  subject. 
It  would,  therefore,  be  an  almost  impossible  thing  that 
the  Committee  on  Appropriations  should  be  com- 
posed wholly  of  good  men ;  and  unless  the  chairman 
were  a  man  particularly  interested  in  foreign  affairs, 
in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  the  Subcommittee  on  Appro- 
priations for  the  Consular  and  Diplomatic  Service 
would  be  composed  of  persons  possessing  no  previous 
acquaintance  with  the  subject.  The  subcommittee  of 
the  House,  then  took  up  the  estimates  presented  by 
the  Secretary  of  State  and  prepared  a  bill.  It  was 
not  content  with  the  present  establishment,  and  re- 
fused to  be  governed  by  the  General  Law  or  the  Re- 
vised Statutes.  It  raised  a  grade  here,  established  a 
consul  there,  pared  down  a  salary  in  one  place,  abol- 
ished a  mission  in  another,  made  an  important  change 
in  a  third,  and  so  on.  Some  of  these  changes  were 
often  excellent  and  even  necessary,  but  the  principle  of 
new  legislation  in  an  appropriation  bill  was,  according 
to  the  rules,  wrong,  unless  it  were  "  in  the  interest  of 
economy."  The  main  idea  of  the  subcommittee 
seemed  to  be  to  reduce  the  appropriation  to  the  low- 


I 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  2/ 

est  limit,  from  motives  of  economy^  they  said ;  not 
that  the  nation  at  large  cared  for,  or  even  knew  of, 
this  saving  of  ten  or  twenty  thousand  dollars  to  the 
detriment  of  its  interests,  but  because  the  reputation 
of  being  economical,  and  "  watchdogs  of  the  Treas- 
ury," would  possibly  help  them  in  their  district,  and 
their  constituents  might  believe  them  worthy  of  a  new 
election.  The  bill  was  then  reported  to  the  House ; 
the  party  strength  was  drilled  to  support  the  commit- 
tee. Every  amendment  was  voted  down,  for  the  men 
whose  salaries  were  sometimes  retroactively  abolished 
were  too  far  away  to  be  heard ;  no  changes  were  made 
save  of  one  kind  ;  some  objector  invoked  the  rules  of 
the  House  against  every  slight  increase  of  pay  or 
grade  as  "  new  legislation,"  but  any  diminution  was 
passed  without  notice,  because  although  it  had  evi- 
dently the  same  character,  it  was  "  in  the  interest  of 
economy."  From  the  House  the  bill  went  to  the 
Senate.  The  general  theory  of  the  Senate  committee 
is  to  reject  every  change  made  by  the  House,  and  to 
return  pretty  closely  to  the  Law  of  the  last  Congress, 
restoring  what  has  been  omitted,  and  adding  a  few 
largish  appropriations  for  unforeseen  expenses,  secret 
service  money,  or,  as  it  is  technically  expressed,  for 
"  expenses  in  carrying  out  the  Neutrality  Act,"  and 
the  like.  These  are  necessary  to  bargain  with.  The 
Senate  passes  the  amended  bill  with  slight  debate, 
except  in  unusual  cases.     We  have  now  reached  the 


28  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

last  days  of  the  session,  when  there  is  no  time  for  the 
detailed  consideration  of  any  measure.  The  House, 
on  motion  of  the  member  in  charge  of  the  bill,  rejects, 
without  debate,  all  the  Senate  amendments,  and  sug- 
gests a  Committee  of  Conference ;  the  Senate  in  like 
way  refuses  to  recede,  and  accepts  the  conference. 
The  two  committees,  or  as  many  as  choose  to  attend, 
then  meet  in  secret  conference,  bargain  with  each 
other,  give  and  take,  each  yield  in  part,  and  report 
the  result  back  to  their  respective  houses  in  such  a 
technical  form  that  it  is  impossible  to  understand  it 
without  a  careful  examination  of  all  the  papers ;  it 
is  read  hastily  by  the  clerk,  and  it  is  passed  without 
debate.  It  may,  and  frequently  does,  contain  new 
matters  never  before  proposed  in  the  open  House. 
And  thus  six  men  have  secretly  decided  upon  an 
important  law  and  have  forced  it  through  Congress.* 

*  As  a  specimen  of  the  Report  of  a  Conference  Committee, 
here  is  that  agreed  to  at  the  end  of  the  last  Congress,  from  the 
Congressional  Record. 

"  The  Committee  of  Conference  on  the  disagreeing  votes  of 
the  two  Houses  on  the  amendments  of  the  Senate  to  the  bill 
(H.  R.  7,857)  making  appropriations  for  the  consular  and  diplo- 
matic services  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1886,  and  for  other  purposes,  having  met,  after  full 
and  free  conference  have  agreed  to  recommend,  and  do  recom- 
mend, to  their  respective  Houses  as  follows  : 

"  That  the  Senate  recede  from  its  amendments  numbered 
12,  13,  19,  20,  22,  23,  24,  43,  48,  51,  52,  62,  63,  and  64. 

"  That  the  House  recede  from  its  disagreement  to  the 
amendments  of  the  Senate  numbered  i,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10, 


THE  DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE,  29 

I  am  not  blaming  either  Republicans  or  Democrats 
— both  do  the  same  thing — I  am  only  explaining  the 
system  which  is  getting  to  be  the  habitual  way  of 
passing  all  appropriation  bills.  We  can  see  how  de- 
bate is  stifled,  and  what  a  chance  there  is  for  jobs  in 
some  bills. 

We  must  see  also  the  disastrous  effects  of  this  sys- 
tem upon  the  public  interests,  vacillation  in  our 
foreign  policy  and  disorganization  in  our  foreign  ser- 
vice. How  can  an  already  underpaid  consul  per- 
il, 14,  15,  16,  17,  18,  21,  25,  26,  27,  28,  29,  30,  31,  32,  33,  35, 

36,  37,  38,  39,  41,  42,  45,  46,  47,  49,  5°,  53,  54,  55,  5^,  57,  5^, 
60,  61,  and  65,  and  agree  to  the  same. 

"  That  the  House  recede  from  its  disagreement  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Senate  numbered  2,  and  agree  to  the  same 
with  an  amendment  as  follows  :  In  lieu  of  the  matter  proposed 
to  be  inserted  by  said  amendment  insert  the  following  : 

"  *  For  salary  of  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary to  Turkey,  $10,000. 

** '  For  salary  of  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary to  the  United  States  of  Colombia  $7,500.' 

*'  And  the  Senate  agree  to  the  same. 

"  That  the  House  recede  from  its  disagreement  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Senate  numbered  34,  and  agree  to  the 
same  with  an  amendment  as  follows  :  In  lieu  of  the  sum  pro- 
posed, insert  *  $319,000 ;  '  and  the  Senate  agree  to  the  same. 

"  That  the  House  recede  from  its  disagreement  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Senate  numbered  40,  and  agree  to  the  same 
with  an  amendment  as  follows  :  In  lieu  of  the  sum  proposed 
insert  '  $48,880; '  and  the  Senate  agree  to  the  same. 

"  That  the  House  recede  from  its  disagreement  to  the 
amendment  to  the  Senate  numbered  44,  and  agree  to  the  same 
with  an  amendment  as  follows  :  Restore  the  word  stricken  out 
by  said  amendment ;  and  the  Senate  agree  to  the  same." 


30  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

form  his  duties  properly  and  vigorously  when  every 
few  months  he  has  to  consider  the  chances  of  having 
his  salary  cut  down,  or,  when  engaged  in  an  impor- 
tant investigation  by  order  of  his  Goyernment,  he  is 
quietly  informed  that  his  salary  ceased  a  month  or 
six  weeks  before  ? 

The  interests  of  the  country  demand  that  our  diplo- 
matic and  consular  service  should  be  fixed  by  a  gen- 
eral law,  subject  of  course  to  necessary  changes,  to  be 
recommended  by  the  Department,  and  not  undergo 
this  annual  tinkering,  to  which  no  other  branch  of  the 
Government  and  no  other  class  of  officials  are  sub- 
jected. 

Since  the  above  was  written  the  rujes  of  the  House 
have  been  so  changed  as  to  take  away  from  the  Com- 
mittee of  Appropriations  the  control  of  the  appropria- 
tions for  several  branches  of  the  Government,  among 
them  those  for  the  consular  and  diplomatic  service, 
which  are  given  to  the  committee  on  Foreign  Affairs. 
This  important  step  will  be  greatly  to  the  benefit  of 
that  service,  and  therefore  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
country.  It  has,  however,  still  more  important  con- 
sequences, in  reducing  the  tyrannical  and  unconstitu- 
tional powers  of  the  governing  junto.  What  has  been 
written  is  nevertheless  allowed  to  remain,  in  order  to 
show  to  what  point  our  Government  had  come  when 
this  salutary  measure  was  taken. 

In  countries  where  Parliamentary  rather  than  Con- 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE:.  3 1 

gressional  government  prevails,  either  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs  or  one  of  his  assistants  is  present 
at  the  debates,  and  is  able  to  show  cogent  reasons  in 
support  of  the  estimates  of  the  government.  Even 
under  our  system  there  is  no  reason  why  one  of  the 
Assistant  Secretaries  of  State  should  not  go  before 
the  committee  and  support  the  propositions  of  the 
Department  and  the  plan  already  adopted  by  Con- 
gress and  in  operation.  Unfortunately  there  seems 
generally  to  reign  a  misunderstanding  between  the 
State  Department  and  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Whether  it  be  that  the  Secretary  wishes  to  empha- 
size the  fact  that  the  Senate  is  in  a  way  associated 
with  him  in  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs,  or  whether, 
acting  on  old  rigid  notions  of  Constitutional  theory, 
he  may  wish  to  assert  the  divorce  between  the  execu- 
tive and  the  legislative  branches  of  the  Government, 
he  is  not  generally  quite  so  accessible,  nor  so  ready 
with  explanations  to  the  committees  of  the  House 
as  to  those  of  the  Senate.  At  least  the  members  of 
the  subcommittee  have  often  complained  that  when 
they  have  visited  the  State  Department  for  the  pur- 
pose of  consulting  the  Secretary  on  the  estimates 
great  reticence  has  been  shown,  and  explanations 
have  been  delayed.  This  has  wrongly  impressed 
them  as  exaggerated  secrecy,  unwillingness  to  explain, 
and  desire  for  concealment,  if  not  rudeness,  when  it 
was  probably  merely  owing  to  an  imperfect  acquaint- 


32  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ance  with  small  details  on  the  part  of  the  Secretary. 
The  Chiefs  of  the  Diplomatic  and  Consular  Bureaux, 
who  have,  in  the  end,  furnished  the  committees  with 
information,  have  not  had  the  power  to  accept  sug- 
gestions in  behalf  of  the  Secretary.  Indeed,  instead 
of  accepting  changes,  the  Department  has  generally 
looked  to  the  Senate  to  undo  those  made  by  the 
House.  .  To  such  an  extent  has  this  distrust  been 
sometimes  carried,  that  (as  I  have  the  best  authority 
for  saying)  recently  a  large  appropriation,  which  was 
thought  very  desirable  by  the  Secretary,  failed  simply 
because  he  refused  to  take  the  House  committee 
into  his  confidence  in  the  matter.  The  feeling  of 
official  dignity  was  stronger  than  the  desire  to  for- 
ward his  political  views. 

The  State  Department  is  charged  with  the  publi- 
cation of  various  information,  especially  of  a  commer- 
cial nature,  sent  by  its  agents  abroad.  It  was  the 
practice  for  many  years  to  publish  nothing  sent  by 
the  consuls  except  their  annual  reports,  which  were 
transmitted  to  Congress,  at  each  session,  either  with 
or  without  a  general  view  of  the  whole  subject  of  our 
commercial  relations.  Owing  to  delays  in  print- 
ing, these  reports,  which  were  published  in  one  or 
two  large  volumes,  were  generally  a  year  or  two  be- 
hind their  date,  and  were  of  no  practical  service  to 
merchants  engaged  in  the  export  trade  or  desirous  of 
obtaining  information  with  regard  to  the  commerce  of 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.         •  33 

other  countries.  When  Mr.  Evarts  was  Secretary  of 
State  a  new  system  was  introduced,  by  which  the 
chief  reports  of  consuls  were  published  every  month, 
and  copies  were  not  only  widely  distributed,  but  were 
sold.  At  the  same  time  the  consuls  were  encour- 
aged, by  circulars  and  direct  requests,  to  furnish  far 
more  commercial  information  than  before.  This  sys- 
tem has  worked  very  well ;  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
the  practice  of  publishing  the  annual  reports  in  a 
separate  volume  will  be  given  up,  and  that  they  will 
be  published  as  fast  as  they  come  in. 

It  has  also  been  the  custom  to  send  annually  to 
Congress,  and  ultimately  to  print,  a  selection  from  the 
reports  and  despatches  of  the  ministers  of  the  United 
States  abroad. 

Up  to  1 86 1  our  Government  published  no  regular 
collection  of  the  correspondence  between  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  and  our  ministers  abroad.  Sometimes 
a  few  documents,  relating  to  an  important  negotiation 
or  to  a  disputed  question,  accompanied  the  President's 
annual  message.  More  often  such  papers  were  sent 
to  Congress  in  answer  to  a  special  resolution,  and  were 
printed  under  the  title  of  "  Executive  Documents." 
Such  special  publications  still  continue;*  but  in  1861, 
to  satisfy  the  natural  curiosity  about  our  foreign  rela- 
tions, which  at  times  during  the  civil  war  were  very 

*  A  list  of  these  special  publications  is  printed  from  time  to 
time  in  the  Register  of  the  State  Department. 
3 


34  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

critical,  Mr.  Seward  began  printing  thick  volumes  of 
"  Diplomatic  Correspondence,"  which,  besides  impor- 
tant papers,  contained  much  that  was  trivial  and  un- 
interesting, even  historically.  In  1869  no  papers  were 
published.  In  1870  Mr.  Fish  began  again  the  publi- 
cation of  annual  volumes  under  the  name  of  "  Foreign 
Relations,"  which  from  their  red  binding  came  to  be 
known  as  the  "  Red  Book."  This  publication  still 
continues. 

Such  publications  exist  in  many  countries.  In 
France  we  have  the  "  Yellow  Book,"  in  Italy  the 
"  Green  Book,"  and  even  during  the  last  year  a  se- 
lection of  diplomatic  despatches  has  been  published 
by  Germany.  The  English  never  publish  their  de- 
spatches exactly  in  this  form.  They  wait  until  some 
particular  subject  arises  and  some  question  comes  up 
in  Parliament,  when  all  the  papers  relating  to  that 
point  are  collected  together  and  published  in  the  form 
of  a  "  Blue  Book."  This  seems  to  be  the  only  proper 
way  for  publication,  as  it  would  be  wrong  to  print, 
simply  for  the  general  information  of  the  public,  any- 
thing more  than  the  routine  despatches  telling  of 
negotiations  which  had  finished,  or  of  the  state  of  the 
government,  changes  of  administration,  the  economical 
and  political  situation,  etc.,  in  the  countries  where  the 
ministers  are  accredited.  Even  with  all  the  care  that 
can  be  exercised  despatches  are  not  infrequently  pub- 
lished which  get  their  writers  into  trouble.     It  may 


THE   DEPARTxMENT   OF   STATE.  35 

be  remembered,  for  instance,  that  the  late  Mr.  Marsh 
became  involved  in  an  annoying  difficulty  in  Italy  on 
account  of  the  publication  of  a  sentence  (which  he  had 
even  written  in  cipher)  in  one  of  his  confidential  de- 
spatches, questioning  the  sanity  of  the  king.  Of  still 
more  recent  date  is  the  difficulty  with  Germany,  aris- 
ing from  the  publication  of  a  despatch  of  our  minister 
on  the  pork  question,  which  resulted  ultimately  in  his 
recall,  disguised  under  the  name  of  transfer.  Numer- 
ous other  instances  might  be  mentioned. 

It  would  be  much  better  to  cease  printing  diplo- 
matic despatches,  unless  Congress  ask  for  information 
on  special  subjects.  Even  then  great  caution  should 
be  observed.  Foreign  governments  sometimes  make 
confidential  communications,  and  in  such  cases  it 
would  be  improper  to  print  these  communications 
without  the  consent  of  those  governments.  At  present 
our  ministers  do  not  feel  free  to  express  to  the  Secre- 
tary their  real  opinions,  for  they  have  always  in  view 
the  possibility  that  their  despatches  may  be  published. 
They  must  therefore  have  recourse  to  confidential 
personal  letters,  when  they  wish  to  say  anything  they 
do  not  wish  to  come  back  on  their  heads.  This 
practice  is  useful,  but  it  has  the  disadvantage  that 
such  letters  are  carried  away  by  each  Secretary  and 
are  not  in  the  archives  for  the  information  of  his 
successor.  Even  confidential  letters  do  not  always 
tell   the  whole  truth.      It  has  been  said  about  the 


36  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

papers  of  a  celebrated  Frenchman,  a  plenipotentiary 
at  the  Congress  of  Verona,  that  they  were  of  four 
kinds  ;  first,  his  despatches  to  the  Minister  of  For- 
eign Affairs,  which  might  if  necessary  be  commu- 
nicated or  published,  showing  how  it  was  desirable 
that  matters  and  transactions  should  appear ;  second, 
his  confidential  letters  to  the  minister,  showing  how 
Jie  wished  matters  to  appear  officially ;  third,  his 
letters  to  an  intimate  friend,  giving  an  unofificial  view 
of  affairs  which  he  wished  to  be  regarded  as  the  true 
one ;  and,  lastly,  his  diary  giving  the  naked  facts  and 
the  exact  truth. 

There  are,  besides  the  Statutes  at  Large,  some  pub- 
lications of  the  Government  which,  from  their  con- 
tents, pertain  to  the  State  Department,  but  which  have 
been  omitted  in  our  enumeration,  because  these  are 
publications  of  archives  rather  than  of  contemporary 
documents.  Such  are:  i.  The  "Diplomatic  Corre- 
spondence of  the  American  Revolution  from  1776  to 
1783,"  edited  by  Jared  Sparks,  originally  printed  in 
Boston  in  1 829-30  in  twelve  volumes,  and  subsequently 
reprinted  in  Washington  in  1857  in  six  volumes.  2. 
"  The  Diplomatic  Correspondence  from  1783  to  1789," 
printed  at  Washington  in  1 833-34  in  seven  volumes  and 
reprinted  in  1837  in  three  volumes.  3.  "  The  Diplo- 
matic Correspondence  from  1789  to  1828,"  entitled 
"  American  State  Papers,  Class  I.,  Foreign  Relations," 
published  in  six  volumes  folio,  at  Washington,  1832-59, 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE,  37 

part  of  a  large  series.  4.  The  collection  of  "  Ameri- 
can Archives,"  edited  by  the  late  Peter  Force,  of  which 
only  nine  volumes  were  published  at  Washington, 
1837-48.  This  was  intended  to  be  a  complete  docu- 
mentary history  of  the  colonial  and  revolutionary 
periods.  Such  are  also  the  papers  of  Washington, 
Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Adams,  and  Franklin, 
the  expenses  of  printing  which  were  paid  either  in 
whole  or  in  part  by  the  Government." 

The  Department  of  State  has  the  custody  of  many 
important  collections  of  papers  relating  to  the  early 
history  of  the  United  States.  Besides  the  papers  just 
mentioned,  most  of  which  were  bought  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  are  therefore  the  property  of  the  nation, 
its  archives  contain  a  large  mass  of  papers  relating  to 
our  Revolutionary  history,  and  other  important  col- 
lections, such  as  the  journals,  logbooks,  etc.,  of  the 
Russian-American  Company,  which  are  very  valuable 
for  the  history  of  our  Pacific  coast.  The  latest  great 
acquisition  comprised  the  Franklin  papers  found  in 
England. 


*  The  cost  of  printing  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention 
which  formed  the  Constitution  and  the  secret  journals  of  the 
old  Congress,  was  $10,542  ;  of  the  first  edition  of  Spark's  Dip- 
lomatic Correspondence,  $50,881  ;  of  the  Diplomatic  Corre- 
spondence, 1783-89,  $16,142  ;  of  the  American  Archives, 
$236,605.  There  were  paid  for  the  papers  of  Washington, 
$45,000 ;  for  the  papers  of  Monroe,  $20,000  ;  and  for  the  papers 
of  Hamilton,  including  the  expenses, of  publication,  $26,000. 


SS  .  A  M ERIC  A  N  DIPL  DMA  C  V. 

There  exist  still  in  European  archives  many  series 
of  papers  of  the  highest  importance  to  our  early  his- 
tory, free  access  to  which  is  not  easy  to  the  American 
historian,  and  of  which  very  few  have  ever  been 
copied  or  printed.  Such  are  the  military  and  diplo- 
matic documents,  the  reports  and  private  letters  dur- 
ing the  whole  of  the  Revolution,  the  papers  relating 
to  the  peace  negotiations,  and  the  very  curious  diplo- 
matic correspondence  preceding  the  War  of  1812, 
which  are  preserved  in  the  English  State  Paper  Office, 
the  British  Museum,  the  Royal  Institution,  and  the 
great  private  collections  of  England.  Such  are  the 
important  papers  in  the  French,  Dutch,  and  Spanish 
archives.  The  detailed  reports  of  the  Hessian  offi- 
cers are  kept  in  Germany,  and  even  the  Russian  ar- 
chives at  Moscow  contain  reports  from  a  secret  agent 
at  Philadelphia,  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  as 
well  as  correspondence  from  Paris,  London,  and  the 
Hague,  relating  to  American  affairs.  It  is  safe  to  say 
that  with  the  help  of  these  documents  many  parts  of 
our  Revolutionary  history  could  be  rewritten.  It 
would  seem  to  be  the  duty  of  our  Government  to  pro- 
cure copies  of  all  these  papers,  of  whatever  character 
they  may  be,  to  calendar  them,  and  to  print  those  of 
importance.  In  so  doing,  we  should  be  only  perform- 
ing our  share  of  the  work  undertaken  by  most  other 
governments.  Nearly  every  country  of  Europe  is 
now  engaged    in    completing   its   archives   from    the 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE.  39 

stores  of  other  countries,  and  in  making  them  acces- 
sible to  the  public. 

In  this  respect — of  the  accessibility  of  our  archives 
— we  are  far  behind  other  nations.  Owing  to  the  small 
clerical  force  at  the  disposal  of  the  State  Department, 
and  to  the  illiberal  ideas  which,  until  recently,  pre- 
vailed there,  not  only  official  documents,  but  papers 
which  had  been  purchased  by  the  nation,  and  were 
intended  for  use,  were  kept  secret,  and  guarded  with 
the  most  jealous  care.  The  late  Friedrich  Kapp  tells 
in  an  amusing  way,  in  some  of  his  prefaces,  of  how  his 
requests  for  information  were  treated  by  Mr.  Seward. 
Although  there  is  now  much  more  freedom,  yet  the 
rules  with  regard  to  the  access  to  our  archives  are 
exceedingly  strict  when  compared  to  the  practice  in 
most  European  State  Paper  Offices.  The  rules  now 
in  force  are  briefly  these  : 

1.  General  searches  are  not  permitted. 

2.  Facts  concerning  Revolutionary  soldiers  are  com- 
municated only  to  the  heirs  of  such  soldiers  who  give 
the  Department  satisfactory  proof  of  their  right  to 
information. 

3.  Students  and  writers  of  history  properly  made 
known  to  the  Department,  are  permitted  to  see 
and  examine  particular  documents  specified  by 
them. 

4.  So  far  as  other  official  duties  will  permit,  ab- 
stracts of  papers  are  prepared  for  the  assistance  of 


40  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

those  who  desire  information  about  events  of  which 
there  are  no  piiblisJicd  authorities. 

5.  Ail  transcripts  are  made  by  the  employees  in 
the  bureau  in  which  the  originals  are  preserved. 

If  the  Secretary  of  State  would  study  the  rules 
which  now  govern  the  archives  of  France,  Prussia,  and 
even  Russia,  he  would  probably  see  that  he  could  be 
still  more  liberal,  and  could  greatly  facilitate  histori- 
cal research  by  relaxing  some  of  these  restrictions. 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  in  times  past 
our  archives  have  been  very  carelessly  treated,  and 
many  papers  are  torn  and  mutilated.  They  should  all 
be  carefully  indexed  and  bound,  and  many  of  them 
copied,  so  that  the  original  papers  need  not  be  handled 
except  on  special  occasions. 

An  "  Historical  Register  of  the  Department  of 
State,"  published  a  few  years  ago,  gave  valuable  infor- 
mation about  the  history  of  our  diplomatic  service.  It 
would  be  well  to  complete  and  republish  it,  or  better 
still  to  print  the  thorough  and  careful  record  prepared 
by  Mr.  John  H.  Haswell,  the  Chief  of  the  Bureau  of 
Indexes  and  Archives,  which  gives  the  official  history 
of  every  one  ever  connected  with  the  foreign  relations 
of  the  United  States. 


II. 

OUR  CONSULAR  SYSTEM. 

Origin  of  Consuls. — History  of  our  System. — Law  of  1856.-^ 
Consular  Duties — Invoices. — Accounts. — Reports. — Con- 
sular Jurisdiction,  Civil  and  Criminal. — Need  of  Reorgan- 
izing Consular  Courts. — Examples  of  Hard-working  Con- 
sulates.— Consular  Privileges. — Qualifications  for  Consuls. 
— E.xaminations. — Consuls  should  not  be  Merchants  or 
Foreigners. — Grades  of  Consular  Officers. — Salaries. — 
Fees. — Allowances. — British  and  French  Systems. — Need 
of  Reform. 

So  far  we  have  considered  only  the  central  office,  the 
home  management  of  our  foreign  relations. 

We  now  find  resident  at  various  capitals  and  ports 
abroad  agents  of  the  Government,  under  the  control 
of  the  State  Department,  belonging  to  two  classes, 
those  in  the  consular  and  those  in  the  diplomatic 
service. 

Consuls  differ  from  diplomatic  agents  (by  what- 
ever name  they  may  be  known)  that  the  latter  are  the 
representatives  of  one  State  or  Government  to  an- 
other, while  consuls  are  the  representatives  of  the 
individuals  of  the  nation  sending  them,  empowered 
to  protect    individual    interests,   and   to   procure   for 


42  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

their  fellow-citizens,  so  far  as  possible,  the  same  pro- 
tection to  their  rights  that  they  enjoy  at  home.  They 
represent  commercial  interests  only,  and  while  they 
can  address  themselves  directly  to  the  local  authori- 
ties, when  the  rights  of  their  fellow-citizens  are  in- 
fringed, if  redress  be  not  given  they  cannot  apply 
to  the  supreme  government  except  in  cases  specially 
provided  for  by  treaty.  They  must  refer  the  matter 
to  their  legation  or  their  own  government.  In  other 
words,  they  have  no  diplomatic  or  representative 
rights,  powers,  or  privileges. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  any  detail  about  the 
origin  or  history  of  consular  establishments.  That 
forms  a  part  of  the  history  of  international  law.  It 
is  sufficient  to  say  that  they  began,  in  somewhat  near 
the  present  form,  after  the  Crusades  and  the  decay  of 
the  Eastern  Empire,  when  the  Venetians  and  other 
Italian  peoples  began  to  establish  themselves  in  the 
East  for  the  purposes  of  trade.  An  officer  was  ap- 
pointed, generally  from  among  the  number  of  mer- 
chants, to  decide  the  disputes  between  the  members 
of  these  little  foreign  colonies  on  an  infidel  shore. 

From  the  East  this  institution  came  back  to  the 
commercial  towns  of  Southern  Europe,  where  the 
merchants  took  up  the  habit  of  electing  one  of  their 
number  to  decide  their  commercial  disputes,  accord- 
ing to  custom  and  usage,  without  the  formalities  of  a 
regular  court   of   law.     These   judges   or   arbitrators 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  43 

received  the  name  of  Juges-Consuls^  Judge-Consuls  or 
Consul-Judges,  and  their  tribunals  were  the  origin  of 
the  present  commercial  or  consular  courts  in  France, 
Italy,  and  Spain.  The  name  was  natural  enough,  for 
in  those  towns  that  had  formerly  been  Roman  col- 
onies, such  as  Cologne,  Lyons,  and  Marseilles,  the  title 
of  the  great  officers  of  the  Roman  Republic  had  de- 
scended to  the  municipal  magistrates,  such  as,  indeed, 
the  Roman  consuls  really  were,  and  in  some  cases 
was  kept  up  to  the  French  Revolution  and  Code  Na- 
poleon."^ Consul-Judge  was  therefore  a  natural  term, 
and  the  transition  to  Foreign  Consul  was  easy. 

The  right  of  appointing  foreign  consuls  soon  passed 
from  the  merchant  communities  to  their  govern- 
ments ;  the  Hanse  Towns  and  England  saw  the 
advantage  of  these  officers,  and  before  long  it  be- 
came a  regular  practice  for  one  government  to  ap- 
point'  consuls  to  act  in  the  dominions  of  another. 
The  first  English  consul  that  we  know  of  was  Leo- 
nardo Strozzi,  an  Italian  by  birth,  appointed  to  Pisa 
in  1175. 

The  powers  of  consuls  were  by  degrees  enlarged, 
restricted,  and  defined.  Gradually  the  legal  jurisdic- 
tion over  disputes  was  withdrawn  in  nearly  all  ex- 
cept non-Christian  countries,  although  for  questions 

*  Other  civic  appellations  were  also  in  Roman  style,  and  the 
inscription  S.  P.  O.  L.  appears  on  many  of  the  public  build- 
ings in  Lyons. 


44  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

of  wills  and  intestate  property  this  jurisdiction  has 
been  still  in  some  measure  kept.  With  regard  to 
maritime  matters  the  case  is  different,  and  here,  for 
the  purpose  of  avoiding  protracted  disputes  in  the 
courts  of  the  country,  the  consuls  are  still  allowed 
large  jurisdiction.  This  is  nowadays  in  most  cases 
regulated  by  special  treaties. 

Our  own  country,  by  means  of  consular  treaties 
and  conventions,  has  had  the  greatest  influence  in 
settling  and  determining  the  rights,  powers,  and  im- 
munities of  consuls,  and  as  nearly  all  existing  treaties, 
whether  made  by  the  United  States  or  by  foreign 
powers,  are  subsequent  to  the  first  publication  of 
Wheaton's  "  Elements  of  International  Law,"  the  pres- 
ent status  of  consuls  is  very  different  from  that  laid 
down  by  Wheaton.  Perhaps  the  best  exposition  of 
the  subject  will  be  found  in  the  "  Commentary  on 
Wheaton  "  by  the  late  William  Beach  Lawrence."^ 

Nevertheless  our  Government  has  always  main- 
tained that  consuls  had  rights  and  powers  coming  to 
them  from  the  common  law  of  nations,  though  sub- 
ject to  abridgment  by  Congress  and  to  enlargement 
by  treaties.     Consuls  were  recognized  as  existing  of- 

*  Commentaire  stir  les  EMmeiits  dii  droit  international  et 
sur  Vhistoire  des  pr ogres  du  droit,  des  gens  de  Henry  Wheaton, 
par  William  Beach  Lawrence.  4  vols.  Leipzig,  1868- 1880. 
This  excellent  work  was  based  on  the  author's  notes  to  his  edi- 
tion of  Wheaton,  greatly  expanded.  Unfortunately  it  extends 
only  to  the  end  of  Part  II.,  Chap.  ii. 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM,  45 

ficers  by  the  Constitution ;  the  first  detailed  law  re- 
garding them  was  in  1792,  and  before  this  Washing- 
ton had  appointed  and  commissioned  seventeen  con- 
suls and  five  vice-consuls. 

The  law  of  1792,  which  was  to  carry  into  effect  our 
Consular  Treaty  with  France,  did  not  create  or  even 
regulate  the  consular  system,  it  merely  recognized  its 
existence,  in  imposing  certain  specified  duties  upon 
consular  officers.  Two  previous  and  several  subse- 
quent statutes  did  nothing  more.  The  consular  ser- 
vice was  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of  the  State 
Department,  which  in  18 16  made  a  fruitless  effort 
to  have  fixed  salaries,  at  least  for  the  chief  consular 
officers.  There  was  another  similar  attempt  in  1833, 
but  nothing  was  done  in  this  way  until  the  law  of  1856, 
by  which  our  consular  system  is  still  in  the  main 
regulated,  though  various  changes  of  minor  impor- 
tance have  been  made  since  that  time.  A  similar  law 
had  already  been  passed  in  1855;  but  as  by  this  the 
President  was  ordered  to  make  new  appointments 
to  all  the  consulates,  which  were  thereby  declared 
vacant,  this  brought  about  a  constitutional  ques- 
tion of  the  President's  prerogative,  which  was  set 
forth  in  two  opinions  of  Attorney-General  Caleb 
Cushing,  of  May  25,  and  June  2,  1855.  The  objec- 
tions were  obviated  in  the  law  of  the  following  year. 
A  similar  conflict  arose  about  the  Appropriations  Act 
of  1876,  between  President  Grant  and  Congress.     In 


46  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the  law  of  1856  there  was  the  first  attempt  to  estab- 
lish a  regular  consular  corps,  by  the  appointment  of 
consular  pupils,  but  this  section  was  abrogated  by  the 
Appropriations  Act  of  the  same  year.  The  matter 
was  again  brought  to  the  attention  of  Congress  in 
1864  by  Mr.  Seward,  and  the  President  was  author- 
ized to  appoint  thirteen  consular  clerks,  not  remov- 
able except  for  cause  to  be  stated  to  Congress.  This 
has  never  gone  further. 

The  main  provisions  of  the  act  of  1856  were  to  give 
many  of  the  consuls  fixed  salaries,  and  to  classify  them 
so  that  those  embraced  in  a  certain  schedule,  known 
as  Schedule  B,  receive  a  fixed  salary  and  are  not  al- 
lowed to  transact  business  ;  those  in  another  schedule, 
known  as  Schedule  C,  receive  a  small  fixed  salary  and 
are  allowed  to  transact  business  for  their  own  profit ; 
and  all  other  consuls  (some  of  them  now  important 
ones),  who  are  compensated  by  the  fees  they  receive 
are  also  allowed  to  do  business.  Since  then,  by  the 
law  of  1874,  the  salaried  consulates  have  been  ar- 
ranged in  seven  classes,  according  to  the  amount  of 
salary,  from  $4,000  to  $1,000;  but  so  long  as  there  is 
no  fixed  rule  of  promotion  from  one  grade  to  another 
this  classification  is  meaningless.  It  in  no  way  corre- 
sponds to  the  importance  of  the  posts.  --- 

In  1868  the  Joint  Select  Committee  on  Retrench- 
ment proposed  a  regular  graded  consular  system, 
based  upon  competitive  examinations,  and   the  report 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  47 

of  Senator  Patterson  presents  strong  reasons  for  this 
plan.^ 

Still  more  lately,  in  pursuance  of  a  provision  in 
the  Appropriations  Act  for  1882-3,  ^^f^-  Frelinghuysen 
took  the  opinions  of  the  consular  officers  on  the  sub- 
ject of  reform,  and  made  a  report  proposing  various 
changes,  and  asking  for  a  commission  to  study  the 
subject  with  a  view  to  remodelling  the  whole  system.t 

Consuls  are  in  a  certain  way  charged  with  watch- 
ing over  the  execution  of  treaties,  for  they  must  pro- 
tect any  of  their  countrymen  whose  rights  are  invaded 
and  must  immediately  bring  to  the  attention  of  their 
government  any  such  infringement.  In  general,  they 
observe  the  movements  of  naval  forces  of  all  nations 
on  the  coast  near  the  port  in  which  they  are  placed  ; 
and  it  is  their  duty  also  to  watch  over  the  dignity  of 
their  own  country  in  maintaining  the  rights  of  their 
flag.  Not  only  are  they  obliged  to  give  aid,  advice, 
and  assistance  to  the  ships  of  their  commercial 
marine;  but  they  should,  in  their  correspondence  with 
their  Government,  report  all  events  touching  the 
navigation,  the  various  changes  in  the  commerce  of 
the  countries  where  they-live,  and  especially  anything 
touching    the    special    commerce   with    the.  country 

*  Senate  Report,  No.  154,  40th  Congress,  2d  Session. 

fThe  report  is  dated  March  20,  1884,  with  a  supplement 
of  January  5,  1885,  48th  Congress,  ist  Session,  H.  R.  Ex. 
Doc,  No.  121  ;  48th  Congress,  2d  Session,  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc, 
No.  65. 


48  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

which  sends  them.  In  fine,  they  are  bound  to  keep 
pace  with. the  state  and  progress  of  manufactures,  the 
rise  of  new  branches  of  industry,  and,  in  general,  the 
increase  or  diminution  of  the  public  wealth,  taking 
especial  care  to  be  well  acquainted  with  all  matters 
where  other  countries  may  gain  advantage  over  their 
own.  They  are  given  a  sort  of  police  jurisdiction 
over  the  commercial  vessels  of  their  own  country ; 
they  are  generally  charged  with  the  duty  of  investigat- 
ing shipwrecks  and  saving  property  from  the  wrecked 
or  stranded  vessels,  with  all  disputes  between  cap- 
tains and  sailors,  with  arresting  deserters,  and  with 
sending  back  shipwrecked  or  discharged  seamen.  In 
time  of  war  their  duties  in  these  respects  are  still  more 
important,  for  they  are  obliged,  so  far  as  either  in- 
ternational law,  special  treaties,  or  the  laws  of  the 
country  will  permit  them,  to  protect  at  all  hazard 
the  commercial  and  naval  interests  of  their  country 
against  arbitrary  acts,  whether  committed  by  the 
country  to  which  they  are  sent  or  by  the  nation  at  war 
with  it.  On  the  death  of  one  of  their  countrymen 
they,  in  general,  take  possession  of  his  effects,  and  in 
case  of  property  left  in  the  country,  manage,  keep,  and 
dispose  of  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  heirs.  They  are 
authorized,  besides,  to  perform  notarial  duties  of  all 
kinds,  and  in  most  cases  they  are  the  only  authorities 
who  can  validate  legal  instruments  between  citizens  of 
their  country  or  others  to  be  used  at  home. 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  49 

In  addition  to  the  general  duties  of  a  consul  va- 
rious special  duties  are  imposed  on  American  consuls 
by  our  tariff  system,  which  do  not  generally  exist  in 
the  services  of  other  countries.  It  is  necessary  for 
our  consuls  to  verify  in  triplicate  every  invoice  of 
goods  sent  to  the  United  States.  Not  only  is  the 
consul  obliged  to  take  the  oath  or  statement  of  the 
manufacturer!  or  exporter,  but  he  is  expected  to  have  a 
special  knowledge  of  the  trade  of  the  place  and  of  the 
actual  value  of  the  goods,  so  that  he  can  control  the 
statements  made  to  him  ;  for  our  system  does  not  ac- 
cept the  valuations  of  goods  always  at  the  actual  price 
paid  for  them,  but  at  the  market  value  of  the  place 
where  they  are  manufactured  or  chiefly  sold.  The 
consul  is  in  many  cases  expected  to  have  in  his  office 
samples  of  the  merchandise  generally  shipped,  and  to 
be  in  a  position  to  discover  any  undervaluation,  fraud, 
or  collusion.  These  duties  are  by  no  means  light  ones. 
In  a  large  commercial  centre  many  thousand  invoices 
are  signed  every  year.  For  each  of  these  he  must  ap- 
pose his  signature  in  triplicate  to  two  papers,  with  his 
official  seal,  must  fasten  the  papers  together  in  such  a 
way  as  to  prevent  fraud,  and  in  case  of  depreciation 
of  currency  must  add  still  another  certificate  as  to  the 
value  of  money.  Of  these  triplicate  invoices  one  is 
given  to  the  shipper,  one  is  retained  in  the  consulate 
as  proof,  and  the  third  is  sent  to  the  collector  of  the 
port  to  which  the  goods  are  forwarded,  marked  also 
4 


r 


J^. 


50  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

in  an  explanatory  list.  This  is  not  all.  The  consul 
must  keep  an  accurate  register  of  all  these  invoices, 
with  date,  number,  fee,  and  the  value  of  the  goods, 
called  an  "  Invoice  Book  ; "  he  must  keep  another 
separate  register  of  fees,  and,  in  some  cases  still  a  third. 
While  each  invoice  imposes  on  the  consul  such  a 
duty,  the  amount  of  fees  received,  in  general  $2.50  for 
each  invoice,  does  not  in  all  cases  correctly  show  the 
value  of  the  commerce  or  the  importance  of  the 
consulate  ;  for  while  in  many  places  there  is  a  very 
great  number  of  small  invoices,  in  others  whole  car- 
goes are  sent  under  a  single  invoice,  and  the  amount 
of  fees  taken  in  is,  therefore,  no  exact  measure  of  the 
importance  of  the  consul's  services  to  the  Treasury. 
Besides  this,  in  certain  cases  he  is  bound  to  take  no- 
tice and  prepare  official  papers  with  regard  to  the  im- 
ports from  the  United  States  to  the  place  where  he  is 
stationed ;  for  certain  articles,  such  as  petroleum 
casks,  shooks,  or  pieces  of  wood  used  for  orange-boxes, 
and  grain  bags,  are  allowed  to  return  free  to  the  United 
States  on  proof  of  their  once  being  exported  thence. 

Besides  keeping  a  number  of  official  records,  regis- 
ters, and  fee-books,  carrying  on  his  ordinary  corre- 
spondence with  the  Department  of  State,  in  carefully 
prescribed  forms,  refeting^o  the-business  of  -his  office, 
and  reporting  anything  of  interest  of  a  commercial  na- 
ture to  the  Government,  the  consul  is  obliged  to  make 
quarterly,  semi-annual,  and  annual  returns  both  to  the 


OUR    CONSULAR  SYSTEM.  ^      5 1 

State  Department  and  to  the  Treasury.  He  must, 
for  instance,  at  the  end  of  each  quarter,  give  a  digest 
of  the  invoices  verified  by  him  during  that  period,  a 
record  of  the  arrivals  and  departures  of  American  ves- 
sels— a  return  nowadays  exceedingly  simple — a  reg- 
ister of  deceased  American  citizens,  a  record  of  his 
notarial  services  or  unofficial  fees,  a  summary  of  the 
whole  consular  business,  and,  in  case  the  consul  has 
extra-territorial  jurisdiction,  a  return  of  the  business  of 
the  consular  court,  and  also  a  record  of  his  official  fees. 
The  semi-annual  and  annual  returns  embrace  besides 
that  a  list  of  passports  issued  or  visaed,  a  list  of  persons 
to  whom  protection  may  have  been  given  in  non-Chris- 
tian countries,  reports  of  the  estates  of  deceased  citi- 
zens, names  of  persons  married  in  the  consulate,  a  cor- 
rect list  of  fees  received,  a  list  of  despatches  written 
to  the  Department  during  the  year,  a  list  of  marriages 
of  American  citizens  within  his  jurisdiction,  and  a 
register  of  American  residents.  He  must  send  to  the 
Treasury,  at  the  end  of  every  quarter,  a  record  of  the 
Treasury  fees,  to  which  he  is  obliged  to  take  an  oath 
before  some  magistrate,  for,  although  a  person  of  confi- 
dence, his  word  or  official  statement  is  not  believed  by 
the  Treasury  without  an  oath ;  a  list  of  seamen  shipped, 
discharged,  or  deceased  at  the  consulate  ;  a  statement  of 
all  relief  given  to  seamen  ;  a  summary  of  consular  busi- 
ness; and  three  other  reports,  relative  to  seamen,  extra 
wages,  and  hospital  dues.     He  must  send  also  to  the 


52  ^AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Treasury  an  account  current  of  the  receipts  and  expen- 
ditures of  the  consulate;  and  his  salary  account,  in  all 
cases  in  duplicate  and  accompanied  by  various  certifi- 
cates and  vouchers.  His  account  for  rent  and  miscel- 
laneous expenses  goes  not  to  the  Treasury  but  to  the 
Department  of  State.  The  consular  accounts,  after 
passing  through  the  Bureau  of  Accounts  at  the  De- 
partment of  State,  are,  with  marks  of  approval  or  dis- 
approval, forwarded  to  the  Fifth  Auditor  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department,  where  they  are  subjected  to  a  careful 
examination,  the  least  error  or  overcharge  of  any  kind 
being  noted,  and  are  then  passed  on  to  the  First 
Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  who  finally  decides 
whether  they  are  to  be  admitted.  Although  nearly 
all  other  ofificers  of  the  Government  may  receive  their 
pay  at  the  expiration  of  every  month,  a  consul  can- 
not be  paid  before  the  termination  of  his  quarter, 
and  he  may  then,  in  case  he  has  not  received  of- 
ficial fees  sufificient,  draw  upon  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  for  the  amount  due  him.  It  is  a  little  dififi- 
to  see  what  other  system  could  be  adopted,  al- 
though diplomatic  ofificials  draw,  not  on  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  but  on  an  account  opened  to  their 
credit  with  the  bankers  of  the  State  Department  in 
London.  The  system  of  drawing  drafts  on  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  perhaps  prevents  loss  to  the 
Government  in  one  way ;  but  as  in  very  many  cases 
in   drawing   upon   the    United    States  there  is  a  loss 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  53 

on  exchange,  this  loss,  in  some  cases  a  large  one,  falls 
fortunately  on  the  Government  and  not  on  the  consul. 
This  makes  an  addition  to  the  general  estimates,  and 
is  especially  provided  for  in  the  appropriations.  At 
the  same  time  a  consul  who,  although  his  duties  may 
be  very  important  to  the  interests  of  the  Government, 
verifies  few  invoices,  and  therefore  receives  few  fees, 
is,  unless  he  has  private  means,  obliged  to  live  upon 
credit  for  the  first  three  months  after  his  arrival  at  his 
post,  and  even  then  may  sometimes  find  it  difficult  to 
meet  with  a  banker  or  merchant  willing  to  cash  his 
drafts  at  any  moderate  rate. 

In  shipping-ports  consuls  of  the  United  States  have 
to  inspect  the  manifests  of  vessels  leaving  for  the 
United  States,  to  see  that  they  are  in  accordance  with 
the  tariff  laws.  They  must  send  frequent  reports  as 
to  the  state  of  health  in  their  district,  especially  if 
there  be  any  epidemic  disease ;  must  inspect  vessels  in 
such  cases,  and  issue  or  countersign  bills  of  health. 
They  must  prevent,  by  every  means  in  their  powe/,  the 
shipment  of  paupers  or  criminals  as  emigrants  to  tiic 
United  States,  and  promptly  report  such  cases  ;  must 
in  like  way  obstruct  the  emigration  of  Mormon  con- 
verts, and  must  report  all  violations  of  the  passenger 
laws.  Consuls  must  report,  besides,  all  new  inventions 
and  discoveries,  all  improvements  in  agriculture  and 
manufactures,  all  information  relative  to  .new  light- 
houses, buoys,  beacons  and  shoals,  and  must  be  vigi- 


54  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

lant  with  regard  to  the  importation  of  neat  cattle  and 
hides,  as  well  as  of  rags,  lest  disease  may  be  introduced 
into  the  United  States. 

Consuls  are  obliged  to  send  annual  reports  through 
the  Consul-General,  containing  full  statistics  and  state- 
ments respecting  the  trade  and  navigation  in  their 
^  districts,  arranged  in  tabulated  forms,  and  from  these 
each  Consul-General  must  send 

''  in  duplicate,  each  year,  a  full  report  upon  the  trade  and  in- 
dustry of  the  country  under  his  supervision,  arranged  and 
systematized  so  as  to  show,  ist,  its  agriculture  ;  2d,  its  manu- 
factures ;  3d,  the  condition  of  its  mines  ;  4th,  its  fisheries  ; 
5th,  the  products  of  its  forests  ;  6th,  its  commerce,  showing  {a) 
the  number  of  vessels,  domestic  and  foreign,  entered  and 
cleared,  and  the  amount  of  tonnage,  {b)  the  amount  and  value 
of  imports  and  duties  thereon,  {c)  the  amount  and  value  of 
exports,  [d)  its  trade  with  the  United  States  ;  7th,  its  revenues, 
separating  customs  from  other  sources  of  revenue  ;  8th,  such 
miscellaneous  subjects  as  may  appear  of  importance,  such  as 
new  commercial  treaties,  statements  of  population,  emigration, 
price  of  food,  wages  of  labor,  conditions  of  the  people,  pe- 
culiarities in  business  and  habits,  and  all  points  of  interest  that 
may  serve  to  further  American  trade  and  general  information. 
''  All  consuls  will  transmit,  as  soon  as  they  are  published, 
statements  of  all  changes  in  the  commercial  systems  of  the 
governments  to  which  they  are  accredited,  copies  of  all  com- 
mercial treaties,  regulations,  light-house  notices,  revenue  laws, 
acts  and  regulations  respecting  warehouses,  tonnage  duties, 
and  port  dues  ;  all  tariffs  and  modifications  thereof,  and  all 
enactments,  decrees,  royal  orders,  or  proclamations  which  in 
any  manner  affect  the  commercial,  agricultural,  mining,  or 
other  important  interests  of  the  United  States. 


OUR    CONSULAR    SYSTEM.  55 

"The  trade  reports  of  consular  officers  should  specify  the 
articles  of  import  and  export,  the  countries  which  supply  the 
former  and  receive  the  latter,  the  comparative  increase  or 
decrease  in  the  amounts  of  the  same,  and  the  causes  in  both 
cases  for  either  ;  the  general  regulations  of  trade  and  their 
effects,  the  average  market  prices  within  the  year  of  the  staples 
of  export,  and  the  average  rates  or  freight  to  the  United  States. 
They  should  also  designate  the  articles,  if  any,  prohibited  from 
importation  into  their  consular  districts,  whether  from  the 
place  of  their  growth  or  production  or  from  other  places,  speci- 
fying what  changes  have  occurred  since  their  last  reports  ;  and 
also  all  privileges  or  restrictions  thereon,  if  any,  and  to  what 
vessels  and  in  what  manner  they  apply,  and  all  differences  in 
duties  on  articles  imported  in  foreign  or  national  vessels  ;  all 
tonnage  duties  and  other  port  dues,  and  all  port,  warehouse, 
and  sanitary  regulations,  and  those  relating  to  entry  and  clear- 
ance, where  such  exist  and  have  been  modified  or  enlarged 
since  their  last  reports.  They  should  also  communicate  de- 
tailed information  in  regard  to  the  employment  in  their  con- 
sular districts  of  the  capital,  if  any,  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  whether  employed  in  industrial,  agricultural,  scientific, 
or  commercial  pursuits.  They  should  also  transmit  tabular 
or  other  statements  touching  the  consumption  of  the  products 
of  the  United  States  as  well  as  of  other  countries  ;  the  amount 
of  these  articles  imported  Into  their  districts  in  American 
vessels,  and  the  amount  of  foreign  tonnaj,e  employed  in  the 
trade. 

''  Consular  officers  should  from  time  to  time  communicate 
any  useful  and  interesting  information  relating  to  agriculture, 
manufactures,  labor,  wages,^  population,  and  public  works. 
In  all  that  relates  to  scientific  discoveries,  to  progress  in  the 
useful  arts,  and  to  general  statistics  in  foreign  countries,  they 
should  communicate  freely  and  frequently  with  the  Depart- 
ment.    They  should  be  careful  to  note  all  events  occurring 


56  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

within  their  several  districts  which  affect,  favorably  or  other- 
wise, the  navigation  and  commerce  of  the  United  States ;  the 
establishment  of  new  branches  of  industry,  the  increase  or 
decline  of  those  before  established,  and  the  demands  for  new 
articles  of  the  products  or  manufactures  of  the  United  States. 
They  should  also  promptly  advise  the  Department  in  all  mat- 
ters calculated  to  benefit  our  commerce  or  other  interests,  and 
as  to  all  means  for  removing  any  impediments  that  obstruct 
their  development.  • 

"Consular  officers  will  transmit,  quarterly,  information  on 
the  following  points  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  not  only  in 
reference  to  the  trade  of  the  place  of  their  residence,  but  that 
of  the  neighboring  country  or  towns  with  which  it  may  be  con- 
nected commercially,  or  through  which  their  merchandise  may 
be  shipped  to  the  United  States  :  ist.  The  usual  terms  on 
which  merchandise  is  bought  and  sold,  whether  on  credit  or 
for  cash.  The  usual  discounts  allowed,  either  from  custom  or 
in  consideration  of  cash  payment,  or  from  other  cause  ;  whether 
such  discounts  are  uniform,  and,  if  not,  whether  they  vary  in 
the  same,  or  only  on  different  descriptions  of  merchandise  ; 
and  whether  such  discounts,  or  any  of  them,  are  regarded  as 
a  bonus  or  gratuity  to  the  buyer  for  his  benefit ;  whether  he 
purchases  for  himself  or  ships  merchandise  to  order  and  for 
account  of  others.  2d.  The  bounties  allowed  on  articles  ex- 
ported, and  for  what  reason,  and  under  what  circumstances  ; 
whether  they  are  the  same  on  exports  by  national  or  foreign 
vessels  ;  if  not,  the  difference  ;  the  rates  of  su^b  bounties,  and 
how  estimated,  whether  on  weight,  measure,  gauge,  price,  or 
value.  3d.  The  customary  charge  of  commissions  for  pur- 
chasing and  shipping  goods  of  different  descriptions  ;  the  usual 
brokerage  on  the  purchase  or  sale  of  merchandise  ;  whether 
it  is  paid  by  the  buyer  or  seller,  or  by  both.  4th.  The  usual 
and  customary  expenses  in  detail  attending  the  purchase  and 
shipment  of  merchandise,  including  commissions,  brokerage, 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  57 

export  duty,  dock,  trade,  or  city  dues,  lighterage,  porterage, 
labor,  cost  of  packages,  covering  or  embaling,  cooperage, 
gauging,  weighing,  wharfage,  and  local  imposts  or  taxes  of 
any  kind  ;  which  of  the  foregoing,  or  other  items,  are  usually 
included  in  the  price  of  the  article,  or  become  a  separate  charge 
to  be  paid  by  the  shipper  or  purchaser. 

*'  In  the  case  of  merchandise  purchased  at  the  interior  places, 
or  in  other  countries  having  no  shipping  ports  of  their  own, 
for  shipment  to  foreign  countries,  through  the  ports  of  the 
consulate,  consuls  will  report  the  customary  expenses  attend- 
ing the  transportation  from  such  interior  places  or  countries 
to  the  port  of  shipment,  including  all  transits,  exports,  or  im- 
port frontier  duty,  and  every  other  charge  up  to  the  arrival  at 
such  port,  and  the  ordinary  expenses  attending  the  shipment 
thereof. 

''The  duties  of  consular  officers  in  respect  to  the  develop- 
ment of  trade  with  the  United  States  are  of  special  interest 
and  importance.  The  condition  of  the  products  and  manufac- 
tures of  this  country  is  such  that  very  many  articles  of  growth 
and  manufacture  can  be  exported  in  largely  increased  quan- 
tities, and  the  Department  of  State  has  taken  particular  inter- 
est in  all  efforts  and  measures  for  the  promotion  of  our  export 
trade.  The  agency  of  consular  officers  in  this  direction  is  of 
the  highest  value,  and  their  efficient  services  hitherto  have  met 
with  deserved  recognition.  It  is  expected  that  they  should 
devote  special  attention  to  the  methods  by  which  trade  with 
the  United  States  can  be  most  effectively  fostered  and  en- 
larged, and  by  which  new  branches  of  industry  can  be  intro- 
duced within  their  districts.  To  this  end  they  should  from 
time  to  time  advise  the  Department  of  the  demand  for  differ- 
ent kinds  of  products  and  manufactured  articles,  and  whether 
they  are  of  the  character  which  it  is  probable  the  industries  of 
the  United  States  can  supply  ;  and  also  of  any  products  of  the 
country  in  which  trade  with  the  United  States  may  be  acquired 


i^ 


58  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

or   increased,  either  by  legislation,  executive   action,    or  by 
commercial  enterprise."  * 

I  have  preferred  to  quote  the  exact  text  of  the 
"  Consular  Regulations,"  as  further  condensation 
seems  difficult.  Reports  of  a  similar  character  have 
to  be  made  also  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

"  It  is  the  duty  of  every  consular  officer  to  furnish  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as  often  as  shall  be  required,  the 
prices-current  of  all  articles  of  merchandise  usually  exported 
to  the  United  States  from  the  port  or  place  in  which  he  shall 
be  located.  They  are  also  requested  to  transmit,  at  least  once 
a  month,  if  opportunity  offers,  to  the  Secretary  of  State  and  to 
the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  the  rates  of  exchange,  and 
also  a  statement  of  the  rates  at  which  any  depreciated  currency 
of  the  country  in  which  they  reside  is  computed  in  United 
States  or  Spanish  dollars,  or  in  silver  or  gold  coins  of  other 
countries,  observing  in  all  cases  of  an  estimate  of  the  value  of 
the  currency  in  such  foreign  coins  that  their  weight  and  stand- 
ard should  be  made  known  to  the  Department. 

''  Consular  officers  will  also  report  monthly  to  the  Treasury 
Department  the  rates  of  exchange  prevailing  between  the 
ports  or  places  at  which  they  reside  and  the  following  places, 
to  wit,  London,  Paris,  Amsterdam,  and  Hamburg ;  also  New 
York  and  other  principal  ports  in  the  United  States  ;  and  they 
will  keep  the  Department  regularly  and  fully  advised  of  the 
course  and  progress  of  trade  from  the  several  ports  of  their 
consulates  to  the  United  States. 

"  Consular  officers  will  forward  regularly,  and  as  often  as 
practicable,  directly  to  the  general  appraisers  residing  at  New 
York,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and  San  Francisco, 
such   prices-current,  manufacturers'  statements   of  prices,   or 

*  United  States  Consular  Regulation,  par.  556,  559-563- 


OUR    CONSULAR    SYSTEM.  59 

merchants'  printed  circulars  of  prices,  and  such  other  general 
information  as  may  be  useful  to  appraisers  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duties.  They  will  include  in  their  several  reports,  in 
detail,  information  on  any  other  points  which  they  may  think 
proper,  in  order  to  an  ascertainment  of  the  value  of  merchan- 
dise forwarded  to  the  United  States,  and  the  assessment  of 
the  legal  duties,  forwarding  any  printed  or  other  documents 
which  they  may  think  desirable  that  the  Department  should 
possess."  * 

The  relations  of  consuls  to  the  Treasury  have  sev- 
eral times  led  that  Department  to  claim  a  jurisdiction 
over  the  consular  system.  In  1872,  Mr.  Keim,  who 
had  been  sent  out  as  a  Treasury  agent  for  the  exam- 
ination of  consular  affairs,  recommended  the  with- 
drawal of  all  control  over  consular  officers  from  the 
State  Department  and  its  transfer  to  the  Treasury, 
and  even  prepared  a  bill  for  that  purpose.  Many  of 
his  judgments  and  minor  suggestions  were  very  sensi- 
ble.t 

But  besides  all  these  purely  commercial  and  cleri- 
cal duties,  consuls  have,  in  non-Christian  countries, 
where  it  would  be  unsafe  to  leave  the  lives  and  the 
property  of  foreigners  to  the  discretion  of  a  native 
tribunal,  a  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction,  which  it  is 
necessary  to  explain  in  some  detail. 

After  the  capture  of  Constantinople  by  the  Turks 

*  U.  S.  Consular  Regulations,  571-573.  ''^ 

fA  Report  to  the  Hon.  George   S.  Boutwell,  Secretary  of 

the  Treasury,  upon  the  Condition  of  the  Consular  Service. 

1872. 


Co  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

in  1453,  owing  to  the  ignorance  of  Christian  usages, 
and  because  it  was  found  more  convenient  that  the 
Christians  should  in  a  measure  govern  themselves,  and 
that  their  governors  should  be  held  responsible  for 
their  conduct,  various  privileges  of  self-government 
were  granted  to  the  native  Christians.  Genoa  and 
Venice  having  at  that  time  mercantile  establishments 
on  the  Bosphorus,  such  privileges  were  extended  also 
to  them.  Subsequently,  by  a  treaty  made  in  1535 
between  King  Francis  I.  and  the  Sultan  Suleiman 
I.,  similar  privileges  were  given  to  the  French,  and 
through  them  to  all  the  Franks.  These  privileges 
were  subsequently  enlarged  and  confirmed,  especially 
by  the  "-reaty  of  Mahmud  I.  with  Louis  XV.,  in  1740, 
which  is  the  basis  of  all  the  present  arrangements. 
The  English,  from  whom  we  in  part  derived  our 
rights,  secured  their  privileges  by  a  treaty  in  1675  be- 
tween Mahmud  IV.  and  Charles  II.  Other  nations 
gradually  followed  these  examples. 

These  privileges  are  in  general  called  Capitulations  ; 
not  in  the  sense  now  usual  of  a  surrender  of  right,  for 
they  were  a  free  grant,  but  in  the  old  sense  of  an 
agreement  under  heads  and  articles,  "  Capitula."  The 
word  was  not  unusual  in  such  a  sense  in  old  French 
treaties  and  conventions,  for  we  read  of  a  "  Capitula- 
tion and  contract  of  marriage  "  between  Dom  Pedro 
of  Portugal  and  the  Princess  Marie  of  Savoy.  The 
basis  of  these  privileges  was  what  is  now  commonly 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  6 1 

termed  Extra-territoriality,  that  is,  that  the  citizens 
and  subjects  of  foreign  powers  shall  between  them- 
selves have  the  same  rights  and  privileges,  especially 
in  the  settlement  of  their  disputes,  as  though  they 
were  in  their  own  country ;  and  that  this  distinction 
shall  be  so  far  observed  in  case  of  criminal  procedure, 
where  they  have  offended  the  laws  of  the  land  or  have 
disputes  with  the  subjects  of  the  country,  that  they 
shall  not  be  treated  differently  {i.e.,  more  unfavor- 
ably) from  the  subjects  of  the  country,  and  shall  al- 
ways have  the  protection  of  their  representatives  to 
see  that  absolute  justice  is  done. 

The  United  States  acquired  these  rights  of  extra- 
territoriality partly  from  having  enjoyed  them  while 
still  British  colonies,  but  mainly  from  our  treaty  con- 
cluded with  Turkey  in  1830.  By  the  first  article  it 
was  agreed  that  the  merchants  of  both  countries 
should  be  placed  on  an  equality  with  those  of  all 
powers  in  the  country  respectively ;  and  by  the  fourth 
article  it  was  agreed  that, 

**  If  litigations  and  disputes  should  arise  between  the  sub- 
jects of  the  supreme  power  and  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
the  parties  shall  not  be  held,  nor  shall  judgment  be  pro- 
nounced unless  the  American  dragoman  be  present.  Citizens 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  even  when  they  may  have 
committed  some  offence,  shall  not  be  arrested  and  put  in  prison 
by  the  local  authorities,  but  they  shall  be  tried  by  their  min- 
ister or  consul,  and  punished  according  to  their  offence,  fol- 
lowing in  this  respect  the  usage  observed  toward  other  Franks." 


62  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

A  dispute  arose  between  Turkey  and  the  United 
States  as  to  the  proper  meaning  of  this  article.  As 
several  of  the  treaties  between  Turkey  and  foreign 
powers  permitted  foreign  subjects  to  be  tried  by  a 
mixed  court,  or  even  by  a  Turkish  court  in  the  pres- 
ence of  a  foreign  representative,  the  Porte  held  that 
the  United  States  should  conform  to  this.  The 
Turks  also  insisted  that  our  translation  of  the  treaty 
was  incorrect ;  and  it  seems  that  Captain  Porter,  our 
first  minister  at  Constantinople,  had  signed  an  agree- 
ment by  which  he  recognized  the  Turkish  text  of  the 
treaty  as  the  binding  one.  They  said  that  the  phrase 
*'  they  shall  not  be  arrested  and  put  into  prison  by  the 
local  authorities,  but  they  shall  be  tried  by  their  min- 
ister or  consul,"  was  not  in  the  original  treaty.  Our 
Government  maintained  the  contrary  view ;  and  a 
number  of  independent  translations  from  the  text  of 
the  original  proved  that  we  were  in  the  right.  In 
addition  to  this,  similar  stipulations  to  those  of  this 
fourth  article  had  been  put  in  the  Turkish  treaties 
with  Greece,  the  Hanse  Towns,  Belgium,  Portugal, 
and  Sweden.  We,  therefore,  insisted  on  our  interpre- 
tation, and  the  result  was  that  in  one  or  two  cases  per- 
sons escaped  trial.  Both  Governments  still  maintain 
their  ground,  and  this  dispute  has  never  been  settled. 

The  United  States  have  similar  treaties  granting 
extra-territorial  rights  with  Borneo,  China,  Japan, 
Madagascar,  Morocco,  Muscat,   Persia,  Samoa,  Siam, 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  63 

and  Tripoli ;  that  is,  in  general  with  all  non-Christian 
countries.  We  have  treaties  of  the  same  nature  with 
Algeria  and  Tunis,  but  these  countries  being  now 
occupied  by  France,  and  we  having  agreed  to  give  up 
our  extra-territorial  rights  since  the  establishment  of 
fair  tribunals,  they  are  no  longer  of  effect.  There  was 
for  a  long  time  a  question  whether  these  rights  existed 
in  Roumania.  As  to  Serbia  there  was  no  doubt.  But 
in  both  these  countries  such  rights  have  been  given 
up  through  the  conclusion  of  consular  treaties.  Many 
of  these  treaties  for  jurisdiction  are  far  more  full  and 
explicit  than  our  treaty  with  Turkey. 

There  was,  however,  no  law  of  Congress  permitting 
the  exercise  by  consuls  of  these  powers  conferred  by 
treaty  until  the  act  of  August  11,  1848,  which  was 
subsequently  extended  and  amended  by  those  of  June 
22,  i860,  and  July  i,  1870.  By  these  laws  consuls 
are  authorized  to  arraign  and  try  all  citizens  of  the 
United  States  charged  with  offences  committed  in 
such  countries,  to  sentence  them  to  fine,  imprison- 
ment, and  even  death,  and  to  execute  such  sentences. 
They  have  authority  also  to  try  and  determine  all 
civil  causes  arising  between  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  or  between  Americans  and  other  foreigners, 
sitting  in  some  cases  alone,  and  in  others  with  asses- 
sors. They  are  given  many  other  judicial  powers,  in- 
cluding marriage,  divorce,  the  custody  of  property, 
the  probate  of  wills,  etc.     Similar  powers  are  vested 


64  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

in  ministers,  who  can  also  hear  appeals  from  the  con- 
sular courts  ;  and  it  is  only  in  Japan  and  China,  when 
the  matter  in  dispute  exceeds  two  thousand  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  that  there  can  be  a  further  appeal  to  the 
Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of 
California.  These  courts  are  governed  by  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  but  as  the  Federal  legislation  will 
by  no  means  cover  all  the  questions  presented,  the 
common  law  and  the  provisions  of  equity  and  admir- 
alty have  been  extended  to  supplement  it.  Different 
regulations  for  procedure  have  been  drawn  up  in  the 
different  countries,  and  our  whole  system  is  in  a  con- 
fused and  contradictory  condition,  by  no  means  fur- 
nishing the  same  safeguards  for  the  administration  of 
justice  as  are  afforded  by  the  French,  English,  or  Ital- 
ian systems.  The  English  have  regularly  constituted 
courts,  both  of  original  and  appellate  jurisdiction,  and 
jury  trial,  whenever  possible,  in  criminal  cases.  The 
French  have  besides,  an  appeal  to  the  court  of  Aix  in 
Provence,  the  judgment  of  which  may  be  again  re- 
viewed by  the  Cour  de  Cassation. 

Some  recent  cases  of  failure  of  justice,  and  espe- 
cially two  trials,  one  in  Japan  and  one  in  Egypt, 
where  men  were  condemned  to  death,  without  a  jury, 
under  peculiar  circumstances,  drew  public  attention 
to  the  defects  of  our  legislation.  A  report  was  made 
on  the  subject  by  the  Secretary  of  State  in  1882,  and 
an  excellent  and  carefully  drafted  bill  for  the  reorgan- 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  6$ 

ization  of  the  whole  system  of  consular  courts  was 
passed  by  the  Senate,  mainly  through  the  efforts  of 
Mr.  Pendleton,  who  devoted  to  the  subject  much 
care  and  attention.  This  bill  failed  to  pass  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  at  the  last  session  (1884-85), 
chiefly  jDecause  it  provided  for  a  number  of  new  ap- 
pointments, which  the  dominant  party  did  not  wish 
to  have  made  by  a  Republican  administration ;  no 
one  seemed  to  read  it  through  and  to  notice  that  it  was 
only  to  take  effect  six  months  after  a  code  of  practice 
had  been  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the 
Attorney-General,  and  had  been  approved  by  the 
President.  This  bill  provided,  in  brief,  for  the  reor- 
ganization and  limitation  of  the  consular  courts,  for 
the  establishment  of  district  courts,  and  of  a  supreme 
court,  in  China  and  Japan,  and  for  a  right  of  appeal 
in  other  countries  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  Japan,  or 
to  the  United  States  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
New  York.  In  order  to  supply  proper  clerks,  the 
number  of  consular  clerks  was  increased  to  twenty- 
five.  Measures  were  taken  for  the  introduction  of 
the  jury  system,  and  sentences  of  death  must  be  ap- 
proved by  the  President. 

The  need  of  some  such  reform  is  urgent,  and  Presi- 
dent Cleveland  directed  the  attention  of  Congress  to 
it  again,  in  his  message  of  December  8,  1885." 

*  The  whole  subject  of  consular  jurisdiction  is  set  forth  in 
Lawrence's  Commcntairc  sur  IVhcaton,  vol.  iv.     See  also  the 


66  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Of  course,  not  all  consuls  have  to  perform  all  the 
duties  which  have  just  been  enumerated.  The  cir- 
cumstances of  each  post  are  different.  The  following 
examples  will,  however,  show  that  the  work  of  con- 
sular officers  has  not  been  exaggerated.  Take,  for  in- 
stance, the  duties  of  the  Consul-General  at  Sl\anghai. 

''  I  St.  He  has  supervisory  control  over  all  consulates  in 
China.  2d.  Because  of  the  distance  from  the  legation  at  Pe- 
king, the  insufficient  means  of  communication,  especially  in 
winter,  and  the  peculiar  powers  of  the  local  government,  he 
has  often  important  semi-diplomatic  duties  to  perform,  requir- 
ing delicacy  and  tact.  3d.  With  the  other  consular  represen- 
tatives he  p^l'ticipates  in  the  municipal  government  of  the 
foreign  settlemtsit  with  a  very  considerable  population,  and 
containing  much  valuable  property,  both  real  and  personal. 
4th.  He  is  a  judge  trying  civil  causes  in  which  Americans  ar*e 
defendants,  and  trying  them  for  crimes  sometimes  carrying 
the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law.  He  also  has  charge  of  the  jail 
in  which  American  prisoners  are  confined.  In  his  judicial 
capacity  he  is  judge  of  a  criminal  court,  of  a  court  of  probate 
and  divorce,  of  an  equity  and  of  a  nisi-prius  court.  5th.  He 
is  United  States  postmaster,  handling  all  the  mails  arriving  at 
Shanghai  for  citizens  of  this  country,  either  officials  or  private 
individuals.  6th.  He  performs  the  duties  of  a  seaport  consu- 
late, viz.,  has  care  of  American  shipping,  guarding  the  interests 
of  master,  crew,  and  owners  ;  he  protects  the  revenue  of  his 

Letter  of  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  to  Senator  Windom,  of  April  29, 
1882,  Senatp  Mis.  Doc,  No.  89,  47th  Congress,  ist  Session  ; 
and  especially,  .r  the  Turkish  Capitulations,  the  excellent  re- 
port of  Mr.  Edward  A.  Vandyck,  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  3, 
Special  Session  (1881),  and  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  87,  47th  Con- 
gress, 1st  Session. 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  6/ 

Government  and  watches  and  strives  to  increase  the  export 
trade."  * 

At  Matamoras  the  Consul-General,  in  addition  to 
the  ordinary  consular  duties,  has  to  try  to  prevent 
smuggling  along  the  line  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and 
therefore  to  exercise  a  supervision  of  the  bonded  im- 
ports, and  to  maintain  local  diplomatic  relations  in 
order  to  secure  mutual  good-will,  and  the  better  en- 
forcement of  the  laws  on  the  frontier.  His  subordin- 
ates to  the  north  have  to  watch  not  only  smuggling, 
but  the  movements  of  the  Indians,  and  to  report 
promptly  on  this  subject.  The  work  of  th*^,  Consul- 
General  at  Matamoras,  like  that  of  mos'  of  the  con- 
suls in  Mexico,  has  greatly  increased  during  the  last 
few  years,  owing  to  the  millions  of  American  capital 
now  invested  in  Mexico,  and  to  the  number  of  Ameri- 
can citizens  resident  there.  It  is  necessary  to  protect 
American  interests  not  only  by  watching  against  any 
injustice  to  them,  but  by  giving  reasonable  aid  and 
advice  to  persons  intending  to  engage  in  Mexican 
enterprises.  The  persons  of  Americans  have  to  be 
protected,  unfortunately  too  frequently,  from  the  sus- 
picious and  ignorant  local  authorities,  who  arrest  and 
imprison  them  on  very  slight  pretexts.  To  accom- 
plish this  the  consular  ofificer  at  Matamor^^-  should 
have  a  good  knowledge  of  international  Lw,  and  the 

*  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  April  26,  1884,  H.  R. 
Ex.  Doc,  No.  146,  48th  Congress,  ist  Session. 


68  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

rules  of  extradition,  as  well  as  of  the  municipal  law  of 
the  United  States,  Mexico,  and  of  the  State  of  Texas. 
And  all  this  is  expected  for  an  annual  salary  of  $2,000, 
and  an  allowance  of  $400,  for  office  rent ! 

At  Pale_rmo,  a  city  of  over  two  hundred  thousand 
inhabitants,  our  consul  receives  a  salary  of  $2,000,  with 
an  allowance  of  $400  for  rent  and  $400  for  clork  hire. 
The  fees  of  the  office  in  the  fiscal  year  of  1883-84, 
amounted  to  over  eleven  thousand  dollars,  which,  with 
the  exception  of  $839,  for  ships'  paper,  etc.,  and  $214 
for  miscellaneous,  was  all  for  the  verification  of  invoices, 
of  which  there  were  nearly  four  thousand,  averaging 
about  thirty  a  day  during  the  busy  season.  The  ex- 
ports, which  amount  to  about  five  million  dollars,  con- 
sist chiefly  of  oranges  and  lemons,  with  a  considerable 
amount  of  sulphur,  salt,  and  wine.  Here  the  work  of 
the  consul  is  especially  difficult,  because  the  small 
dealers  'frequently  combine  to  send  one  large  instead 
of  several  smaller  invoices — a  practice  forbidden  by 
our  revenue  laws  ;  and  owing  to  the  system  of  secrecy 
and  terrorism  prevalent  in  business  circles  in  Sicily, 
and  to  the  refusal  to  give  information,  it  is  very  hard 
to  ascertain  and  prevent  this.  The  four  agencies  of 
the  consulate,  at  Carini,  Girgenti,  Marsala,  and 
Trapani,  cause  additional  labor,  and  a  single  case  of 
injustice,  or  of  a  dispute  between  master  and  men  of 
an  American  vessel  in  any  of  these  ports,  has  required 
a  journey  and  the  loss  of  several  days  to  adjust.     Dur- 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  69 

ing  the  last  two  years  the  consul  has  had  to  be  very 
vigilant  with  regard  to  bills  of  health,  lest  cholera 
might  be  imported  into  America.  In  1884  there  were 
two  hundred  and  twenty-eight  American  travellers 
who  visited  the  consulate  (and  the  number  is  yearly 
increasing) ;  that  is,  more  than  one  a  day  during  the 
travelling  season ;  and  as  brigandage  is  still  of  occa- 
sional occurrence,  and  a  passport  law  is  at  times  en- 
forced to  hinder  emigration,  each  of  these  travellers 
required  a  certain  amount  of  attention.  The  frequent 
visits  of  American  ships-of-war  add  greatly  to  the 
consul's  social  duties,  as  well  as  to  his  actual  official 
work,  for  he  must  then  receive  the  mail  for  these  ships 
and  take  measures  to  arrest  deserters.  His  British 
colleague,  who  has  no  duties  with  regard  to  invoices, 
has  a  salary  of  $3,000,  allowances  to  the  amount  of 
$1,000,  and  a  paid  vice-consul  as  well  as  clerks. 

Consular  officers  are  allowed  by  international  law 
in  general,  and  by  special  treaties  with  most  coun- 
tries, except  England,  certain  privileges  ;  for  example, 
the  inviolability  of  the  archives  and  papers  of  the 
consulate,  as  well  as  of  the  consular  office  and  dwell- 
ing ;  freedom  from  arrest ;  exemption  from  any  obliga- 
tion to  appear  as  a  witness — a  consul's  testimony 
being  usually  taken  at  his  office  ;  exemption  from  tax- 
ation, from  the  quartering  of  soldiers,  from  military 
or  other  public  service  ;  the  privilege  of  corresponding 
with  the   local    authorities    in    case    of    infraction    of 


70  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

treaties ;  the  use  of  the  national  arms  and  flag  on 
offices  and  dwellings;  the  power  of  taking  deposi- 
tions ;  jurisdiction  over  disputes  between  masters, 
officers,  and  crews  of  commercial  ships ;  the  right  to 
reclaim  deserters;  the  power  to  adjust  damages  suf- 
fered at  sea  and  in  matters  of  wrecks  and  salvage  ; 
the  power  of  administering  the  estates  of  deceased 
fellow-citizens ;  the  right  of  applying  for  the  extradi- 
tion of  fugitive  criminals.  I  have  excepted  England 
in  order  to  mark  a  noteworthy  fact,  that  the  English 
^government,  while  willing,  under  the  "  most-favored- 
nation  "  clause,  to  accept  all  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties given  in  such  matters  to  the  consuls  of  the  most 
favored  nation  in  other  countries,  has  never  been 
willing  to  make  a  special  consular  treaty,  on  the 
ground  that  Parliament  has  never  conferred  upon  the 
government  the  authority  to  make  such  a  treaty, 
and  that  a  special  act  of  Parliament  would  be  neces- 
sary to  except  foreign  consuls  from  British  jurisdic- 
tion. Promises  have  been  made  to  most  countries  at 
various  times  that  a  bill  to  this  effect  would  speedily 
be  introduced  into  Parliament ;  but  the  proper  or 
convenient  time  has  never  seemed  to  come.  Foreign 
consuls,  therefore,  in  Great  Britain,  are  treated 
exactly  as  British  subjects,  and  have  no  privileges 
whatever  except  such  as  the  courtesy  of  the  Foreign 
Office  and  of  the  Board  of  Trade  chooses  temporarily 
to  permit  them.     It  required  even  a  strong  represen- 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  7 1 

tation  to  the  British  government  to  secure  American 
consuls  from  paying  an  income  tax  to  the  British 
treasury  on  their  official  salaries.  The  property  and 
archives  of  the  French  Consulate-General  at  Lon- 
don were  at  one  time  sold  at  public  auction  for  a 
house  tax  which  had  not  been  paid  by  the  propri- 
etor of  the  house  which  contained  the  consular  office. 
At  Manchester,  in  1857,  the  consular  archives  were 
seized  for  a  debt  of  the  American  consul,  who  was 
absent  at  the  time,  and  Mr.  Dallas,  the  American 
minister,  paid  the  amount  claimed  in  order  to  avoid 
a  sale. 

With  all  the  duties  which  have  been  enumerated, 
and  with  their  corresponding  privileges,  we  may 
easily  see  what  should  be  the  qualifications  of  a  con- 
sular officer.  Allow  me  to  quote  in  this  connection 
the  words  of  Prince  Talleyrand  in  speaking  of  Count 
Reinhard,  who,  after  having  been  French  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  at  Hamburg  and  Florence,  subse- 
quently filled  the  office  of  Consul-General  at  Milan, 
of  Commissary  General  of  Commercial  Relations  in 
Moldavia,  and  again  of  Minister  at  Cassel,  Frankfort, 
and  at  Dresden.     He  said  : 

*'  After  having  been  a  skilful  minister  how  many  things  one 
has  to  know  besides  to  be  a  good  consul  ;  for  the  duties  of  a 
consul  are  infinitely  varied.  They  q.re  of  a  kind  very  different 
from  those  of  other  agents  of  foreign  affairs  ;  they  demand  a 
mass  of  practical  knowledge  for  whigh  a  special  education  is 
necessary." 


72  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Under  our  existing  laws  no  qualifications  whatever 
are  required  except  the  good-will  of  the  appointing 
power.  It  is  not  even  necessary  to  know  how  to 
write  good  English.  Let  us  see  for  a  moment  what 
is  required  in  other  countries.  According  to  existing 
regulations  any  one  appointed  to  the  British  consular 
service  must  be  subjected  to  an  examination  showing 
that  he  has  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  English 
language ;  that  he  can  write  and  speak  French  cor- 
rectly and  fluently,  that  he  has  a  sufficient  knowledge 
of  the  current  language,  as  far  as  commerce  is  con- 
cerned, at  the  port  to  which  he  is  to  be  appointed  to 
reside,  so  as  to  enable  him  to  communicate  directly 
with  the  authorities  and  natives  of  the  place,  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  German  language  being  taken  to  meet 
this  requirement  for  the  ports  of  Northern  Europe, 
of  the  Spanish  or  Portuguese  language,  as  may  be 
determined,  for  ports  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Mexico, 
Central  and  South  America,  and  of  the  Italian  lan- 
guage for  the  ports  in  Italy,  Greece,  Turkey,  Egypt, 
and  the  Black  Sea  and  Mediterranean  ;  a  sufficient 
knowledge  of  British  mercantile  and  commercial  law 
to  enable  him  to  deal  with  questions  arising  between 
British  shipowners  and  shipmasters  and  seamen  ;  a 
sufficient  knowledge  of  arithmetic  for  the  nature  of 
the  duties  which  he  will  be  required  to  perform  in 
drawing  up  commercial  tables  and  reports.  He  is 
also  required,  if  practicable,  to  remain  in  the  Foreign 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  73 

Office  for  at  least  three  months,  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  forms  of  business  as  carried  on  there.  These 
are  only  the  scholastic  qualifications,  and  he  should 
possess,  in  addition,  various  special  qualifications  and 
attainments.  He  should  be  courteous  and  prudent, 
free  from  passion,  and  firm  without  prejudice,  with  a 
well-balanced  mind,  versed  in  the  law  of  nations,  and 
should,  subsequently,  make  himself  thoroughly  ac- 
quainted with  the  laws,  municipal  ordinances,  and 
tariffs  of  the  place  to  which  he  is  appointed.* 

The  requirements  in  France  for  admission  to  the 
consular  service  are  that  the  candidate  must  be  French, 
between  twenty  and  twenty-five  years  of  age ;  must 
have  a  diploma  as  bachelor  of  arts,  science,  or  laws, 
or  must  have  graduated  at  the  Ecole  des  Chartes,  the 
Superior  Normal  School,  the  Polytechnic  School,  the 
School  of  Mines,  the  Ecole  des  Fonts  et  Chaussees,  the 
School  of  Arts  and  Manufactures,  the  School  of 
Forestry,  or  at  the  Special  Military  School,  or  the 
Naval  School ;  or  must  hold  the  commission  of  an 
officer  in  the  active  army  or  navy.  He  must  then 
pass  an  examination  on  :  i.  The  constitutional,  judi- 
cial, and  administrative  organization  of  France  and  of 
foreign  countries ;  2,  general  principles  of  public  and 


*  Specimens  of  the  English  examination  papers  for  the  Con- 
sular and  Diplomatic  Services  and  the  Foreign  Office  are  printed 
at  the  end  of  the  Foreign  Office  List,  and  show  the  thorough 
nature  of  the  test. 


74  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

private  international  law ;  3,  commercial  and  mari- 
time law;  4,  the  history  of  treaties  from  the  Con- 
gress of  Westphalia  to  the  Congress  of  Berlin,  and 
political  and  commercial  geography;  5,  the  elements 
of  political  economy  ;  6,  in  English  or  German.  The 
examination  is  both  written  and  oral,  and  includes  the 
writing  of  a  thesis.  After  three  years'  service  either 
in  the  Foreign  OfBce  or  abroad,  the  candidate  must 
pass  another  examination,  both  written  and  oral ;  if 
for  the  diplomatic  career,  in  English,  German,  and 
contemporary  diplomatic  history ;  if  for  the  consular 
career,  in  English,  German,  or  Spanish,  commercial 
geography,  and  the  customs  legislation  of  France  and 
other  countries.  On  passing  this  examination  he  is 
appointed  either  Third  Secretary  of  Legation  or  As- 
sistant Consul  (Consul  Suppleant)."^ 

The  Belgian,  the  Italian,  and  indeed  the  systems 
of  nearly  all  nations  require  special  examinations  and 
special  knowledge  on  the  part  of  persons  appointed  to 
consular  posts.  In  most  cases  these  begin  at  the  very 
bottom  of  the  ladder  as  clerks,  or  even  consular  pupils, 
and  are  only  promoted  after  years  of  service  and  ex- 
perience. The  Austrian  consular  service  in  the  East  is 
remarkably  good,  and  in  that  nearly  every  member  has 
passed  through  the  school  for  Oriental  languages  at  Vi- 

*  The  most  recent  French  regulations  will  be  found  in  the 
Appendix  to  vol.  ii.  of  the  Cours  de  Droit  diplomatique  of 
P.  Pradier-Fodere.     Paris,  1881. 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  75 

cnna,  and  knows  two  or  three  of  the  languages  spoken 
in  the  country  to  which  he  is  sent,  always  Turkish, 
generally  Greek,  and  sometimes  Persian  in  addition. 

There  are  three  other  important  qualifications — of 
a  negative  character — for  a  good  consul,  which  the 
actual  experience  of  all  nations  has  shown  to  be  very 
necessary.  Consuls  should  not  be  merchants  ;  they 
should  not  be  unpaid  ;  and  they  should  not  be  sub- 
jects, or  even  natives,  of  the  country  where  they  offi- 
cially reside. 

At  the  beginning  of  our  Government  we,  like  most 
other  nations,  started  by  appointing  unpaid  consuls 
from  among  American  merchants  resident  abroad  ;  or, 
if  they  were  sent  from  America,  by  allowing  them 
to  enter  into  business  as  an  equivalent  for  salary. 
This  was  found  to  work  badly  ;  and  even  as  far  back 
as  1816,  the  State  Department  proposed  to  Congress 
to  pay  the  more  important  consular  officers  in  Europe 
fixed  salaries.  No  change  of  any  importance  was 
made,  however,  for  many  years.  The  consuls  received 
the  fees  of  their  office,  and  in  places  where  there  was 
much  to  do  these  fees  amounted  to  a  large  sum.  In 
the  consular  reorganization  in  1856,  fixed  salaries  were 
given  to  a  large  number  of  consuls,  while  others  were 
allowed  to  retain,  in  lieu  of  salaries,  the  fees  of  their 
offices.  This  having  given  rise  to  abuses,  the  fees  in 
certain  places  amounting  to  $10,000,  $25,000,  and  even 
higher,  a  law  was  passed  requiring  consuls  to  account 


^6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

for  all  their  fees  to  the  Treasury,  retaining  not  more 
than  $2,500.  Where  there  were  consular  agents  a 
certain  additional  sum  was  allowed  from  the  receipts 
of  each  agent,  besides  the  payments  of  the  agent  him- 
self. Thus  the  matter  stands  now.  Some  consuls 
receive  a  salary,  others  receive  their  salaries  by  means 
of  fees.  One  objection  to  the  fee  system  is  that  while 
the  feed  consul  is  perhaps  more  careful  of  the  busi- 
ness of  his  office,  in  order  to  receive  his  pay,  the  fees 
are  oppressive  upon  commerce  and  navigation.  In 
order  to  guard  against  the  latter,  a  law  has  recently 
been  passed  remitting  all  fees  upon  navigation,  al- 
though a  round-about  system  has  been  adopted,  by 
which  the  fees  are  charged  against  the  Treasury,  so 
that  an  account  of  them  is  taken.  As  far  as  trade  it- 
self is  concerned,  the  Protectionists  seem  to  approve 
of  the  exactions  of  fees,  because  it  adds  so  much  more 
to  the  cost  of  imported  goods.  The  general  tendency 
in  our  Government  has  been,  where  the  fees  of  a  con- 
sulate amount  regularly  to  more  than  three  thou- 
sand dollars,  to  fix  a  salary  for  the  post.  There  is  one 
bad  result  from  estimating  the  importance  of  a  con- 
sulate in  this  way.  The  more  agreeable  places  are  as 
a  rule  better  paid ;  and  disagreeable  and  unhealthy 
posts,  where  few  fees  are  taken,  but  where  the  protec- 
tion given  to  Americans  is  worth  far  more  to  us  as  a 
nation,  than  a  saving  in  the  collection  of  duties,  are 
left  with  trifling   fees.     Other  countries  which  have 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  7/ 

carefully  studied  the  needs  of  the  consular  service, 
and  the  use  which  this  service  is  of  to  the  merchants 
of  the  country,  have,  for  the  most  part,  adopted  the 
system  of  salaried  consulates. 

When  the  consul  is  a  merchant,  he  is  more  apt  to 
look  out  for  his  own  interests  than  either  for  the  in- 
terests of  the  Government  or  for  those  of  his  fellow- 
citizens  for  whose  protection  he  is  appointed.  He  is 
likely  to  be  engaged  in  that  business  which  has  the 
chief  export  trade  to  the  United  States ;  and  as  con- 
sul he  has  the  power  of  becoming  acquainted  with 
the  trade  of  other  merchants  exporting  similar  goods. 
In  that  way  he  generally  uses  his  consular  position 
and  the  knowledge  derived  in  consequence  of  it,  to 
benefit  his  own  business,  sometimes  to  the  detriment 
of  his  countrymen  who  have  embarked  in  similar  en- 
terprises. In  1884  the  Secretary  of  State  made  a  re- 
port to  Congress  on  consular  matters,  and  took  strong 
grounds  against  the  use  of  merchants  as  consuls.* 
Our  laws  have  now  so  far  forbidden  this  practice  that 
it  is  only  in  the  small  posts  where  the  fees  are  not 
enough  to  pay  the  salary  of  a  consul  that  it  is  al- 
lowed. The  English  consular  service  was  reorgan- 
ized by  Mr.  Canning,  when  Foreign  Minister,  in 
1825;  and  the  more  important  consulates  were 
filled  by  persons  sent  especially  from  England  for 
that   purpose.      In    1835,  an   economically   disposed 

*  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  121,  48th  Congress,  ist  Session. 


78  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Parliament  wishing  to  return  to  the  old  system,  an 
inquiry  was  made,  and  the  evidence  was  taken  of 
many  consuls,  and  of  many  persons  formerly  consuls, 
as  well  as  of  the  leading  merchants  and  chambers  of 
commerce.  The  evidence  was  very  strong  against 
the  practice  of  allowing  consuls  to  engage  in  trade ; 
and  Mr.  Canning's  system  was  therefore  retained. 
Similar  inquiries  were  made  by  Belgium  not  many 
years  ago,  with  the  result  that  the  privilege  of  en- 
gaging in  trade  was  taken  away  from  the  chief  con- 
sulates. This  has  worked  so  well  that  there  is  not 
the  slightest  disposition  to  return  to  the  old  system. 
Nevertheless,  an  opinion  seems  to  be  gaining  ground 
in  this  country  that  it  would  be  greatly  to  the  inter- 
ests of  our  export  trade  if  our  consuls  were  merchants 
in  active  business.  Before  any  change  in  a  retro- 
grade sense  should  be  made,  it  would  be  important 
for  us  to  take  the  evidence  not  only  of  our  consuls 
but  of  our  merchants  and  chambers  of  commerce  on 
this  subject,  as  well  as  to  study  the  results  of  the 
practice  on  other  nations. 

It  should  be  remarked  that  by  usage  in  most  coun- 
tries merchant  consuls,  "  commercial  consuls,"  hold  a 
distinctively  lower  rank  than  co7isules  missi,  consuls 
envoyh^  or  "  diplomatic  consuls,"  as  they  are  often 
called.  They  are  not  held  in  the  same  respect  or 
esteem,  nor  do  they  by  treaty  enjoy  the  same  privi- 
leges as  those  not  engaged  in  trade. 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  79 

The  inconveniences  arising  from  having  consular 
officers  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  country  where  they 
officially  reside  have  been  so  great,  that  most  countries, 
that  admit  the  importance  of  the  consular  service, 
appoint  no  one  but  their  own  subjects  in  places  of  the 
slightest  importance.  The  allegiance  of  a  consul  to 
his  native  government,  and  the  duties  following  from 
it,  constantly  conflict  with  the  duties  which  he  owes 
to  the  country  which  has  appointed  him.  Our  laws 
now  forbid  a  foreigner  to  be  appointed  consul  of  the 
United  States,  or  at  all  events  to  be  a  salaried  con- 
sul ;  and  in  our  service  there  are  very  few  exceptions 
to  this  rule.  Very  much  the  same  objections  which 
apply  to  a  foreigner  apply  to  a  naturalized  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  especially  if  he  should  be  ap- 
pointed consul  in  the  place  of  his  nativity.  Among 
the  foreigners  who  come  to  make  their  home  in  the 
United  States  there  are  many  excellent  and  eminent 
men  ;  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  majority  of 
them  come  here  in  order  to  obtain  better  conditions 
of  life  than  they  have  had  at  home.  If  they  have 
gained  sufficient  position  in  this  country  to  be  ap- 
pointed consuls,  it  shows  that  they  have  profited  by 
their  opportunities ;  but  it  by  no  means  proves  that 
they  will  be  of  service  to  the  United  States  in  an 
official  position  in  the  country  of  their  birth.  Old 
habits  and  connections,  family  relations,  perhaps  even 
the  causes  which  led  them  to  emigrate,  bring  them 


80  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

back  to  the  society  which  was  once  familiar  to  them  ; 
and  this,  as  a  general  rule,  is  not  the  society  which  a 
consul  should  cultivate.  Much  as  we  disregard  the 
prejudices  of  class  distinction  here,  we  are  bound  to 
regard  them  when  we  send  persons  abroad  in  an  of- 
ficial position,  not  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  a 
good  place,  but  to  render  service  to  the  United  States. 
The  complaint  has  not  been  unfrequently  made  by 
merchants  in  European  towns,  "  Have  you  no  Amer- 
icans who  are  fit  to  be  consuls  here  ?  Send  any  one 
you  like,  and  we  shall  be  glad  to  be  polite  to  him 
and  of  service  to  him ;  but  you  cannot  expect  us, 
with  our  habits  and  traditions,  to  introduce  to  our 
families  So  and  So,  whom  we  have  all  known  as  occu- 
pying such  and  such  a  position  in  life."  Apart  from 
that,  a  naturalized  citizen  going  back  to  the  place  of 
his  birth  is  far  more  apt,  owing  to  European  laws, 
customs,  and  prejudices,  to  become  involved  in  dififi- 
culties  with  the  government  of  the  country  to  which 
he  is  appointed,  perhaps  even  for  reasons  preceding 
his  emigration.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  a  govern- 
ment will  cheerfully  accept  as  consul  a  man,  no 
matter  what  his  abilities  may  be,  who  has  emigrated 
on  account  of  political  difficulties,  or  who  has  gone 
away  in  order  to  escape  the  conscription.  Besides 
this,  falling  back,  as  has  been  said,  into  their  old  and 
accustomed  family  circle,  consuls  are  apt  in  such  cases 
to  be  surrounded  with  a  set  of  persons  who  render  it 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  8 1 

disagreeable  for  an  American  even  to  go  to  the  office 
on  business. 

Of  late  years,  especially  since  the  end  of  the  war, 
when  it  has  been  considered  necessary  by  politicians 
to  cultivate  the  foreign-born  voters,  there  has  been  a 
great  tendency  to  appoint  naturalized  citizens  as  con- 
suls ;  partly  in  order  to  please  the  body  to  which 
they  belong,  and  partly  because,  speaking  the  lan- 
guage of  the  country,  and  presumably  acquainted  with 
its  habits,  they  are  thought  to  be  more  capable.  In 
this  way  we  have  very  recently  seen  a  number  of 
naturalized  Germans  appointed  to  the  chief  consu- 
lates of  Germany  and  Austria,  a  Bohemian  to 
Prague,  an  Italian  to  Leghorn,  a  Canadian  to  To- 
ronto, a  Nova  Scotian  to  Halifax,  Irishmen  to  Ireland, 
Scotchmen  to  Scotland,  Frenchmen  to  France,  etc. 
No  person  who  has  lived  abroad  or  has  had  to  do 
with  consular  business,  whether  as  an  official  or  a 
client,  can  for  a  moment  doubt  that  the  interests  of 
the  United  States  would  be  far  better  served  had 
native-born  citizens  been  appointed  to  these  posts. 

The  accepted  consular  hierarchy  in  most  countries 
is,  beginning  at  the  highest,  Consul-General,  Consul, 
Vice-Consul,  and  Consular-Agent.  The  American 
system  varies  somewhat  from  this.  Our  consuls-gen- 
eral are  not  only  given  that  title  to  notice  superiority 
in  rank,  but  are  charged  with  the  supervision  of  all 
our  consulates  in  the  country  in  which  they  are  es- 


82  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

tablished.  They  have,  however,  within  their  own 
special  jurisdiction,  to  perform  exactly  the  same 
duties  as  a  consul.  With  us  vice-consuls  are  never 
independent  officers  subordinate  to  a  consul,  but 
simply  persons  who  take  the  place  of  a  consul  when 
he  is  absent  or  ill,  and  who  at  other  times  exercise  no 
functions.  What  corresponds  to  the  vice-consuls  in 
other  countries  is  by  us  called  a  consular-agent,  who 
does  not  have  as  complete  powers  as  a  vice-consul, 
and  is  generally  appointed  by,  and  is  immediately 
under  the  control  of,  a  consul,  for  places  where  busi- 
ness may  have  to  be  done  but  which  he  cannot  him- 
self attend  to.  For  their  conduct  the  consul  is 
himself  personally  responsible.  We  have  also  deputy- 
consuls,  appointed  in  places  where  much  business  is 
to  be  done,  with  all  the  powers  of  a  consul  for  signing 
papers.  The  term  commercial-agent  is  somewhat  an 
anomaly.  He  is  not  recognized  by  international  law 
as  having  any  consular  privileges,  although  the  State 
Department  has  at  times  made  an  effort  to  secure 
such  recognition  in  certain  places  where  the  govern- 
ments were  unwilling  to  allow  the  appointment  of 
consuls  and  yet  where  the  exportation  to  the  United 
States  was  so  great  as  to  necessitate  the  presence  of 
some  one  who  could  sign  invoices.  An  officer  of  this 
kind  was  appointed  simply  as  an  agent  for  the  Treas- 
ury. Few,  if  any,  such  places  now  exist ;  but  the 
practice  has  grown  on  the  Government  of  appointing 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  83 

commercial-agents  in  places  where  a  consul  or  vice- 
consul  would  be  received,  because  such  an  appoint- 
ment does  not  need  confirmation  by  the  Senate,  and 
it  enables  the  President  to  establish  positions  for  a 
few  years,  and  place  in  them  persons  whose  names  it 
might  be  awkward  to  send  in  for  confirmation. 

In  a  bill  for  the  reorganization  of  the  consular  ser- 
vice which  was  proposed  to  Congress  in  1884  by 
the  State  Department,  consular-agents  are  generally 
abolished,  and  those  officers  are  styled  vice-consuls,  as 
in  other  countries.  This  is  easier  for  the  Government, 
as  in  many  places  well-to-do  merchants  would  be  will- 
ing to  accept  the  position  of  honorary  unpaid  vice- 
consul  on  account  of  the  dignity,  who  refuse  that  of 
consular-agent  as  directly  marking  them  as  officers  of 
inferior  grade. 

In  the  manufacturing  districts  of  Germany  and 
Great  Britain  it  would  perhaps  be  difficult  to  find 
either  honorary  vice-consuls  or  consular-agents  willing 
to  perform  the  work  of  certifying  to  invoices  without 
pay.  In  these  countries  consular  agencies  are  often 
multiplied  without  real  necessity,  except  to  increase 
the  perquisites  of  the  consuls,  who  are  permitted  to 
receive  fees  amounting  to  $1,000  from  the  agencies 
under  their  control.  This  brings  our  service  into  dis- 
repute. There  can,  for  instance,  be  no  real  need  of  a 
consular  agent  at  Burtscheid,  which  practically  forms 
part  of  Aix-la-Chapelle. 


84  AMERICAN  DirLOMACY. 

In  1864  Mr.  Seward  succeeded  in  inducing  Con- 
gress to  authorize  the  appointment  of  thirteen  con- 
sular clerks,  who  "  can  be  removed  only  for  cause 
stated  in  writing  and  submitted  to  Congress."  The 
idea  that  these  clerks  would  form  the  nucleus  of  a 
consular  service  has  proved  illusory.  These  excellent 
and  praiseworthy  officials  have  generally  refused  pro- 
motion. They  prefer  a  position  of  low  rank  and  low 
pay  ($1,000  per  annum,  and  $1,200  after  five  years  of 
continuous  service),  because  it  is  permanent,  knowing 
that  if  they  were  promoted  to  be  consuls  they  could 
immediately  be  removed  without  cause,  to  make 
room  for  others.  The  number  of  consular  clerks  has 
never  been  increased  above  the  original  thirteen,  and 
the  necessary  clerical  assistance  at  most  consulates  is 
given  by  temporary  hired  clerks,  who  are  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  consulate  but  have  no  official  position. 
The  money  to  pay  them  is  voted  by  Congress,  but  the 
points  at  which  it  is  to  be  used  are  not  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  should  properly 
be  the  case,  but  are  fixed  in  the  law.  In  this  way 
clerk-hire  has  been  provided  for  places  where  it  was 
quite  unnecessary,  because  the  consuls  at  these  posts 
could  bring  political  influence  to  bear  in  Congress, 
and  other  more  important  places  have  been  left  with- 
out allowances. 

The  consular  service  has  grown  greatly  since  1856,  ♦ 
because  with  the  heavier  customs  duties  imposed  at 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  85 

the  beginning  of  our  war,  and  the  general  increase  of 
the  commerce  of  our  country,  it  has  been  necessary  for 
the  protection  of  the  revenue  to  establish  consulates 
in  many  inland  manufacturing  towns,  rarely  visited 
by  Americans,  where  otherwise  there  would  be  no 
need  of  consular  officers.  This  increase  in  number 
has  been  greater  among  feed  than  among  salaried  con- 
sulates, 2>.,  among  those  which  are  maintained  by  the 
fees  received,  and  for  which  no  appropriations  have  to 
be  asked  from  Congress.  The  salaries  are  in  the  main 
still  fixed  on  the  basis  of  the  law  of  1856,  modified  by 
that  of  1874,  which  divided  them  into  seven  grades 
or  classes. 

It  may  be  safely  said  that  in  most  of  the  large,  and 
especially  the  commercial  towns  of  Europe,  the  cost 
of  living  has  doubled,  if  not  trebled,  within  the  last 
thirty  years.  A  very  careful  investigation  on  this 
subject  was  made  by  the  British  consuls,  by  order  of 
their  government,  in  1873.  Notwithstanding  this  ad- 
vance of  prices,  the  scale  of  salaries  of  American  con- 
suls has  scarcely  been  changed  in  these  thirty  years, 
when  men  are  still  sent  to  Florence  and  Naples,  ex- 
pected to  be  competent  to  perform  all  the  duties  of 
the  office,  hold  a  respectable  position  in  society,  and 
pay  proper  attention  to  the  numerous  Americans  visit- 
ing those  places,  on  the  sum  of  $1,500  a  year,  scarcely 
more  than  is  paid  to  the  subordinate  employees  of 
Congress. 


86  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

We  have,  therefore,  20  consuls-general,  with  salaries 
varying  from  $2,CXX)  up  to  $6,000,  besides  14  diplo- 
matic ofificials  who  have  the  functions  of  consuls-gen- 
eral ;  146  salaried  consuls,  who  are  not  allowed  to 
engage  in  business,  divided  into  six  grades,  according 
to  the  salary,  from  $1,500  to  $4,000,  with  two  excep- 
tional cases  at  Liverpool  and  Hongkong,  where  the 
salary  is  $6,000  and  $5,000  respectively;  22  consuls, 
with  a  salary  of  $1,000  only,  who  are  allowed  to  en- 
gage in  business ;  and  74  feed  consuls,  who  are  not 
prohibited  from  engaging  in  trade,  and  whose  remu- 
neration varies,  but  cannot  exceed  $2,500  per  annum. 
As  there  is  but  one  consul  of  Class  I.  at  $4,000,  and 
as  all  the  consuls  of  Class  II.  at  $3,500  are  in  China, 
except  one  at  Callao,  it  may  be  presumed  that  $2,500 
is  considered  by  Congress  high  salary.  The  experi- 
ence of  every  one  who  has  ever  been  in  the  consular 
service,  or  who  has  lived  abroad  in  a  private  ca- 
pacity, shows  that  in  most  cases  this  is  utterly  insuf- 
ficient. We  have  also  40  commercial  agents,  of  whom 
37  are  paid  by  fees ;  378  consular  agents,  also  paid  by 
fees  to  the  amount  of  $1,000;  and  13  consular  clerks, 
a  total  of  707,  without  counting  vice-consuls  and  dep- 
uty consuls,  who  act  only  in  the  absence  or  incapacity 
of  their  chief. 

It  is  impossible,  however,  to  judge  of  the  receipts  of 
a  consul  solely  by  his  salary,  or  even  by  adding  to 
that  the  sum  of  $1,000,  which  he  is  allowed  to  retain 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  8/ 

from  the  receipts  of  the  consular  agencies  under  his 
control.  He  receives  fees.  These  fees  are  of  two 
kinds,  official  and  non-official.  The  official  fees,  for 
all  acts  which  he  is  required  to  do  in  his  capacity  as 
consul  for  governmental  purposes,  have  to  be  strictly 
accounted  for  and  paid  back  to  the  Government. 
The  unofficial  or  notarial  fees  which  he  may  receive 
for  drawing  papers  or  for  witnessing  signatures,  as  he 
may  do  from  the  notarial  powers  granted  to  his  office, 
are  retained  by  him.  So  also  he  retains  his  fees  for 
taking  testimony  under  a  special  rogatory  commission 
of  some  American  court.  The  amount  of  such  fees  is 
variable  and  can  scarcely  be  estimated.  In  three  or 
four  places,  where  there  are  many  resident  Americans, 
or  many  persons  who  have  property  interests  in 
America,  which  require  the  preparation  and  signature 
of  legal  papers,  they  are  much  greater  than  in  smaller 
places.  In  London,  Liverpool,  Paris,  Dresden,  and 
Florence,  for  example,  these  fees  add  greatly  to  the 
consul's  income  as  well  as  to  his  duties.  In  Rome 
they  amounted  in  one  year  to  about  one  thousand 
dollars,  and  in  the  next  to  not  one  hundred  dollars. 
In  very  many  consulates  they  would  not  average  ten 
dollars  a  year.  There  being  no  fixed  tariff  for  these 
notarial  fees,  they  are  irregular,  and  it  is  said  that 
£ome  consuls  have  charged  as  much  as  $5  for  the  ac- 
knowledgment of  a  signature,  the  fee  for  which  in 
most  of  our  States  is  only  twenty-five  cents.    It  would 


88  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

be  better  for  every  one,  and  certainly  better  for  the 
good  repute  of  our  service,  if  notarial  duties  were 
made,  not  permissive  as  at  present,  but  obligatory 
upon  consuls,  and  the  fees  were  made  ofilicial  and  all 
paid  into  the  Treasury.  Such  a  regulation  should  not, 
however,  affect  the  remuneration  for  personal  services 
rendered  in  drawing  papers,  wills,  etc.,  and  for  taking 
testimony,  which  should,  as  now,  remain  to  the  con- 
sul personally.  In  many  cases  the  consul  is  the  only 
person  who  could  render  such  services. 

Most  of  the  illegitimate,  semi-legitimate,  or  irregular 
fees,  by  which  consuls  have  sometimes  added  to  their 
income,  have  been  in  one  way  or  another  abolished. 
The  habit  had  grown  up  to  regard  as  official  fees 
only  those  which  were  set  down  in  the  official  table 
sent  from  the  State  Department.  For  all  new  duties, 
whether  imposed  by  the  regulations  of  our  own  cus- 
toms service,  by  the  laws  of  individual  states,  or  by 
the  usages  of  a  foreign  country,  the  fees  were  fixed  by 
the  consul  and  were  collected  by  him  for  his  indi- 
vidual profit,  because  he  was  performing  work  entirely 
outside  of  his  regular  duties.  Such  were,  for  instance, 
immigrant  certificates,  certificates  of  the  American 
origin  of  petroleum  barrels,  or  grain-bags,  cooperage 
certificates,  etc.  But  most  of  these  have  either  been 
abolished  or  made  purely  official,  and  the  abolition  of 
fees  in  connection  with  ships'  papers  has  removed  the 
temptation  to  collect  illicit  fees  for  expediting  them. 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  89 

Almost  the  only  remnant  of  irregular  fees  seems  to 
be  a  practice,  prevalent  in  some  consulates  in  England, 
with  regard  to  the  commissioner's  fee  for  adminis- 
tering the  oath  to  invoices,  which  is  thought  to  be  in 
some  measure  authorized  by  the  words  of  the  Con- 
sular Regulations,  par.  467.  It  is  customary  in  Great 
Britain  to  require  the  shipper  to  swear  to  the  correct- 
ness of  his  invoices  before  a  commissioner  authorized 
to  administer  oaths,  the  consul  himself  having  no  such 
power.  As  the  consul  must  be  acquainted  with  the 
commissioner,  in  order  to  recognize  his  signature,  and 
certify  to  his  qualification,  the  necessities  of  business, 
and  the  convenience  of  merchants  at  large  consulates, 
have  compelled  consuls  to  have  a  commissioner  in  at- 
tendance at  the  consulate  during  certain  hours.  As 
the  legal  fees  of  the  commissioner  are  rather  large, 
being  generally  three  shillings  and  sixpence  for  each 
triplicate,  or  ten  shillings  and  sixpence  for  each  in- 
voice, some  consuls  have,  where  it  has  been  practica- 
ble, employed  these  commissioners  on  a  fixed  salary, 
and  have  thus  been  able  to  reduce  the  fees  paid  by  the 
merchants  by  over  one-half.  If  business  should  fall 
off  below  the  estimate,  the  consul  is  personally  bound 
to  pay  to  the  commissioner  the  difference  between  the 
fees  taken  in  and  the  salary,  and  in  the  contrary  case 
the  consul  himself  pockets  the  difference.  This  prac- 
tice is  certainly  an  advantage  and  an  economy  for  the 
merchants,  but  it  is  also  at  times  a  source  of  large 


90  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

gain  to  the  consuls.  It  has  been  several  times  pro- 
posed to  put  an  end  to  this  practice,  either  by  abolish- 
ing the  oath,  which  is  not  generally  required  in  other 
countries  (in  fact,  such  oaths  are  forbidden  in  Germany 
by  the  German  authorities,  and  are  practically  impos- 
sible in  many  other  countries  on  account  of  the  for- 
mality and  expense),  or  by  making  the  commissioner's 
fees  official  ones,  to  be  returned  to  the  Treasury,  in 
which  case  the  responsibility  for  the  commissioner's 
salary  should  fall  upon  the  Government.  This  last 
course  was  practically  that  proposed  by  the  State  De- 
partment in  the  draft  of  a  bill  submitted  to  Congress 
in  1884,*  but  in  that  case  salaries  should  be  increased, 
as  it  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  find  com- 
petent men  to  do  the  work  on  the  derisory  salaries 
now  granted. 

The  question  of  the  necessity  of  the  oath,  and  in- 
deed of  the  advantage  even  of  consular  certificates  to 
invoices,  is  one  which  belongs  not  so  much  to  the 
State  Department  as  to  the  Treasury  and  the  collec- 
tion of  the  customs  revenue.  The  fact  that  there 
are  fewer  undervaluations  in  British  goods  is  ascribed 
by  some  to  the  peculiar  British  regard  for  the  sanctity 
of  an  oath ;  by  others  to  the  innate  truthfulness  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  character.  Where  goods  are  sold  on 
consignment,  especially  goods  manufactured  expressly 
for  America,   and  for  which  there  is  no  market  else- 

*  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  121,  48th  Congress,  ist  Session. 


OUR   CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  9I 

where,  invoices  are  often  only  a  matter  of  form,  and 
are  frequently  false.  The  consuls  at  Lyons,  Zurich, 
and  Horgen  were  therefore,  in  the  autumn  of  1884, 
authorized  to  employ  experts  to  examine  and  report 
the  cost  of  labor  and  materials  used  in  producing  the 
goods  shipped  from  their  districts.  This  system  has 
proved  very  successful,  and  has  already  saved  to  the 
revenue  millions  of  dollars.  It  would,  however,  be 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  apply  this  system  every- 
where.* 

The  various  extra-official  fees  not  only  bring  our 
consulates  into  disrepute  abroad,  as  has  already  been 
remarked,  but  they  have  had  at  home  a  deleterious 
and  debauching  influence  upon  public  opinion,  in  in- 
ducing the  belief  that  our  consulates  are  in  general 
lucrative  positions,  in  which  a  man  may  get  rich 
without  work.  The  number  of  applicants  for  these 
offices  has  therefore  greatly  increased.  When  it  is 
known  that  consuls  receive  absolutely  nothing  more 
than  their  petty  salaries,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the 
pressure  for  office  will  be  so  diminished  as  to  allow 
the  reorganization  of  the  consular  service  on  a  perma- 
nent basis. 

The  allowances  to  consuls  are  very  moderate.  They 
are  given  for  office-rent  an  amount  never  more  than 

\  *  For  some  interesting  details  on  all  these  points,  see  the 
Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the  Collection  of 
Duties,  of  December  7,  it'85. 


92  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

twenty  per  cent,  of  their  salary ;  clerk-hire  in  certain 
cases  in  very  sparing  sums,  generally  fixed  in  the  Ap- 
propriations Act  for  each  consulate,  and  not,  as  it  should 
be,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Department ;  and  purely 
official  expenses,  in  moderate  amounts,  for  postage, 
stationery,  blanks,  and  printing.  "  It  is  expected  of 
consular  officers  that  their  offices  should  be  suitably 
and  respectably  furnished.  For  this  purpose  they  are 
allowed  for  furniture  "  a  book-case,  and  other  cases 
capable  of  containing  the  archives,  a  suitable  desk  and 
table,  and  the  necessary  chairs,"  if  the  sanction  in  each 
case  of  the  Department  has  been  previously  obtained. 
But  the  keeping  up  of  the  Government  office  is  entirely 
at  the  personal  charge  of  the  consul,  for  "  carpets, 
matting,  curtains,  gas-fixtures,  and  like  articles  of  fur- 
niture, as  well  as  fire,  light,  and  servants,  will  not  be 
provided  by  the  Government,  and  will  not  be  allowed 
in  the  consular  accounts."  "^ 

As  matters  now  stand,  with  the  small  salaries  paid, 
the  consular  system  was,  up  to  last  year,  entirely  self- 
supporting  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  official  fees  received  by 
the  consuls  far  more  than  paid  all  the  outlay.  In  the 
fiscal  year  1883,  for  example,  the  total  expense  of  the 
consular  service  was  $870,290.60,  and  the  total  re- 
ceipts were  $926,054.95,  leaving  a  surplus  in  the 
Treasury  of  $55,744.35.  In  1884  the  surplus  was 
$36,587.24.     In  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1885, 

*  Consular  Regulations,  par.  517. 


OUR   CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  93 

the  total  expenses  were  $870,183.10,  and  the  receipts 
$791,345.43.  This  deficit  of  $78,837.67  is  to  be  ex- 
plained partly  by  a  falling  off  of  fees  for  invoices,  some 
of  which  are  still  unaccounted  for,  but  chiefly  by  the 
abolition  (law  of  June  26,  1884)  of  the  fees  for  ser- 
vices to  American  vessels,  which  in  1884  amounted 
to  $91,031.86. 

Now,  there  is  no  reason  in  the  world  why  offices  so 
important  as  consulates  should  be  expected  to  pay  for 
the  expense  of  the  system,  like  the  Post-Oflfice  De- 
partment. It  would  in  the  end  be  more  advanta- 
geous to  the  Government  if  even  this  amount  were 
spent  on  the  consuls,  irrespective  of  fees  received.  Of 
course,  if  the  revenue  system  should  be  materially 
changed,  many  consulates  would  become  useless,  and 
the  returns  for  fees  received  (and  they  chiefly  are  for 
the  verification  of  invoices)  would  be  materially  di- 
minished. 

The  expenses  of  the  British  consular  service  for 
the  financial  year  of  1883-84  were  ^^254, 124,  or  $1,- 
235,334,  or  only  about  three  hundred  and  sixty-five 
thousand  dollars  more  than  our  own.  But  for  this 
sum,  owing  to  better  salaries,  more  permanent  tenure 
of  ofifice,  the  insistence  on  qualifications  for  ofHce,  pro- 
motion for  good  service,  and  the  hope  of  a  pension, 
Great  Britain  obtained  a  remarkably  efficient  service, 
including  42  consuls-general,  145  consuls,  458  vice- 
consuls,   and    56   consular    agents,  besides    deputies. 


94  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

clerks,  and  chaplains.  Few  posts  are  without  salary, 
chiefly  such  places  as  Berlin,  Frankfort,  Leipzig,  Gen- 
eva, and  Rome,  where  English  consuls  have  very  little 
to  do,  and  where  the  offices  are  honorary  ones,  which 
have  existed  for  many  years.  The  salaries  of  consuls- 
general  vary  from  $5,000  to  $12,500,  as  at  New  York  ; 
and  the  salaries  of  consuls  are  sometimes  as  high  as 
$7,500,  as  at  Astrabad,  and  $6,000,  as  at  Boston. 

The  French  consular  system  has  been  an  excellent 
one  ever  since  it  was  reorganized  in  1836  ;  and  it  has 
improved  since  the  reforms  of  M.  Freycinet  in  1880. 
France,  in  1884,  had  in  active  service  28  consuls-gen- 
eral ;  46  consuls  of  the  first  class,  48  consuls  of  the 
second  class ;  1 2  assistant  consuls  \consuls  suppliants, 
a  title  substituted  for  the  old  clcve  consul^  or  consular 
pupil) ;  10  candidates  for  the  rank  of  assistant  con- 
suls; 103  vice-consuls;  24 chancellors  of  the  first  class, 
36  of  the  second  class,  62  of  the  third  class;  53  drago- 
mans and  interpreters,  and  113  clerks,  making  in  all 
535  persons.  The  salaries  of  the  consuls-general  vary 
from  $4,000,  as  at  Antwerp,  to  $10,000,  as  at  Cairo 
and  Calcutta,  and  $12,000,  as  at  New  York  and  Shang- 
hai. The  highest  salaries  of  consuls  are  $9,000  at 
Batavia,  and  $8,000  at  San  Francisco,  while  the  low- 
est vary  from  $2,400  to  $3,000.  The  highest  vice- 
consular  salaries  are  at  Hang-kow  $3,000,  and  Gal- 
veston $2,800 ;  the  lowest  are  $600  and  $700.  The 
assistant  consuls  are  each  paid  $600 ;  the  interpreters 


OUR   CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  95 

from  $i,ooo  to  $4,000;  the  chancellors  from  $1,000 
to  $2,400,  and  the  clerks  from  $300  to  $1,100,  making 
the  total  expended  for  the  one  hundred  and  thirteen 
clerks  $66,640.  The  total  cost  of  consular  salaries, 
including  clerks,  etc.,  in  1884,  was  about  $943,000. 
The  other  expenses  were  about  $340,000  more. 

A  consul  is  appointed,  as  we  have  seen,  without 
preliminary  examination,  on  the  nomination  of  the 
President,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  Senate.  It  is  im- 
possible, therefore,  to  change  him  from  one  post  to 
another,  even  though  his  special  abilities  or  a  sudden 
emergency  might  make  this  desirable,  without  a  new 
appointment  and  a  new  confirmation.  If  the  consular 
system  should  ever  be  made  a  permanent  one,  it 
would  be  very  desirable  that,  even  if  Congress  should 
fix  the  salaries  to  be  paid  at  certain  posts,  consuls 
should  be  appointed  only  to  the  grade,  leaving  the 
posts  to  which  they  might  be  sent  at  the  discretion 
of  the  Department. 

The  consul,  after  his  appointment,  is  generally  al- 
lowed thirty  days,  during  which,  by  law,  he  may  re- 
ceive salary,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  his  instruc- 
tions and  making  himself  in  some  slight  way  familiar 
with  his  duties  by  personal  instruction  at  the  State 
Department.  This,  however,  is,  in  practice,  a  mere 
formality.  He  is  then  allowed  a  certain  number  of 
days,  fixed  by  regulation  for  different  places,  for  arriv- 
ing at  his  post.     After  arriving  there  he  cannot,  how- 


96  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

* 

ever,  enter  upon  his  dutiest^until  he  has  received  what 
is  called  an  exequatur^  or  recognition  from  the  govern- 
ment in  whose  countr)^  he  is  to  reside.  This  exe- 
quatur is  sometimes  a  document  given  to  him  signed 
by  the  chief  of  the  government ;  in  others  simply  a 
publication  in  the  official  journal  of  the  country  that 
he  has  permission  to  perform  his  functions.^  In  some 
countries,  like  Turkey,  the  consul  is  obliged  to  pay  a 
^y  very  heavy  fee  for  this  document,  there  called  a  berat. 
[  The  object  of  the  exequatur  is  very  simple ;  for  it  is 
a  rule  of  international  law  that  a  public  officer  of  one 
state  cannot  perform  his  duties  in  the  territory  of 
another  state  unless  he  be  acceptable  to  its  govern- 
ment. This  enables  a  foreign  government  to  inquire 
into  the  antecedents  of  a  consul,  and  to  decide 
whether  his  presence  be  accompanied  by  no  disadvan- 
tage. Refusals  to  grant  the  exequatur  are  not  un- 
common. '  An  English  consul  was  refused  by  Russia, 
in  the  Caucasus,  because  it  was  alleged  that  he  was 
hostile  to  the  Russian  government,  and  had  expressed 
strong  opinions  about  Russian  movements  in  Asia. 
In  our  own  history,  without  going  further  back,  a 
consul  recently  appointed  to  Beirut  was  rejected  by 
Turkey,  because  he  was  a  clergyman  and  might  be 
too  much  connected  with  the  missionaries  ;  another 
was  rejected  by  Austria  on  account  of  his  political 
opinions,  he  having  previously  been  an  Austrian  sub- 
ject.'^ Exequaturs  of  consuls  are  sometimes  withdrawn, 


OUR    CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  97 

though  an  opportunity  is  usually  afforded  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  offending  consul  to  withdraw  them 
before  this  measure  is  adopted. 

After  the  consul  has  received  his  permission  to  act, 
whether  permanent  in  the  shape  of  an  exequatur,  or 
temporary  until  his  ^;ir^^/^^/z^r  shouki  be  demanded, 
his  first  duty  is  to  take  possession  of  the  archives  and 
property  of  the  consulate,  until  then  kept  by  his  pre- 
decessor or  his  representative,  and  sign  jointly  with 
him  an  inventory  thereof.  One  copy  of  this  is  kept 
in  the  consular  office  and  another  is  sent  to  the  home 
Government.  He  then  proceeds  to  notify  the  other 
American  consuls  in  the  country,  and  those  immedi- 
ately neighboring,  of  his  entrance  on  duty,  because 
occasionally  there  are  questions  and  disputes  causing 
correspondence.  He  also  makes  official  calls,  for  the 
same  purpose  of  notification,  as  well  as  from  courtesy, 
on  the  chief  authorities  of  the  town  as  well  as  the 
province,  if  those  be  resident  there,  such  as  the  gov- 
ernor, the  prefect,  the  mayor,  the  commandant  of  the 
troops,  the  director  of  the  police,  the  captain  of  the 
port,  the  postmaster,  the  head  of  the  chamber  of  com- 
merce, and  indeed  upon  all  more  or  less  official  per- 
sons with  whom  he  may  be  brought  into  contact,  or 
from  whom  he  may  find  it  necessary  to  ask  favors. 
He  also  makes  personal  official  calls  on  all  the  other 
foreign  consuls  resident  in  the  place.  This  is  not 
only  a  matter  of  courtesy,  but  of  advantage ;  for  he 


98  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

may  be  at  any  time  brought  into  relations  with  them 
through  a  dispute  between  an  American  citizen  and 
the  subject  of  some  foreign  country. 

On  the  whole  our  consuls,  in  spite  of  the  low  sala- 
ries which  sometimes  compel  them  to  live  in  a  man- 
ner unbecoming*  their  position,  and  disagreeable  to 
themselves,  have  performed  their  duties  remarkably 
well.  Even  the  worst  of  consuls,  finding  themselves 
with  an  official  responsibility  put  upon  them,  and  with 
the  duty  of  representing  their  country,  have  behaved 
with  far  more  credit  to  us  than  could  have  been  ex- 
pected before  their  appointment.  Unfortunately  our 
Government  has  too  frequently  sent  uneducated,  un- 
polished, and  utterly  inexperienced  men  to  take  the 
positions  of  consuls  in  places  of  great  responsibility, 
where  experience,  ability,  and  tact  are  prime  requi- 
sites. Sometimes  they  are  broken  down  in  health, 
really  unfit  to  work,  and  have  been  sent  to  a  foreign 
climate  in  order  to  recuperate.  Sometimes  they  have 
been  unfortunate  in  business ;  and  with  the  ignorance 
too  widely  prevalent  of  the  cost  of  living  abroad,  they 
have  been  sent  to  gain  a  livelihood  or  to  revive  their 
fortunes.  This  class  of  appointments  is  especially  un- 
fortunate and  discreditable  to  us,  because  such  per- 
sons, anxious  to  make  money,  are  sometimes  too  un- 
scrupulous as  to  the  methods  they  take.  They  not 
only  contravene  the  laws  and  regulations,  and  involve 
themselves  in  debt,  but  do  acts  which  no  person,  and 


OUR   CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  99 

especially  an  official,  should  be  guilty  of.  Indeed, 
there  can  be  nothing  worse,  unless,  possibly,  men  who 
have  sometimes  been  sent  to  important  places  in  order 
to  reform  them.  Can  it  be  expected  that  a  man,  who 
has  been  a  drunkard  at  home,  will,  when  he  finds 
himself  alone  in  a  foreign  country,  ignorant  of  the 
language,  unacquainted  with  society,  and  without  re- 
sources within  himself,  should  suddenly  improve  ? 
On  the  contrary,  he  generally  grows  worse ;  and  such 
men  have  at  times  brought  our  consular  service  into 
great  disrepute. 

While  saying  that  our  consuls  have  generally  done 
well,  we  must  admit  that  they  do  not  do  as  well  as 
they  would  if  they  were  properly  paid,  and  if  the  ser- 
vice were  permanent.  They  have  naturally  to  keep 
within  their  income,  and  generally  their  official  in- 
come is  all  they  have  to  rely  upon.  They  try  to  in- 
crease it  by  all  lawful  means,  and  are  therefore  obliged 
to  live  in  a  mean  way,  which  is  not  only  unbecoming 
the  representative  of  a  great  country,  but  which  also 
prevents  them  from  reciprocating  the  courtesies  ten- 
dered to  them  by  their  colleagues  and  the  citizens  of 
the  place  ;  and  thus  hinders  them  from  making  those 
acquaintances  which  are  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
fulfilment  of  their  duties  or  the  proper  understanding 
of  their  business.  At  the  same  time  one  must  always 
take  the  accounts  of  travellers  about  our  consuls  with 
a  few  grains  of  allowance ;  for  they  are  very  apt  to 


100  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

give  importance  to  seeming  breaches  of  politeness  and 
hospitality  without  taking  into  consideration  the  pe- 
culiar circumstances  in  which  the  consuls  are  situ- 
ated. Still,  much  stress  should  be  laid  on  the  neces- 
sity imposed  on  consuls  to  enter  into  pleasant,  and 
even  intimate,  relations  with  the  authorities  and  chief 
merchants  of  their  place  of  residence.  In  this  way 
they  cannot  only  more  easily  become  informed  on 
commercial  matters,  but  can  better  perform  one  of 
their  chief  duties,  the  protection  of  American  citizens. 
Many  a  vexation  to  travellers  could  have  been  re- 
moved, if  the  consul,  in  the  first  instance,  without 
intervening  officials,  had  been  in  a  position  to  repre- 
sent the  case  properly  in  a  personal  and  friendly  way 
to  the  authorities. 

The  need  of  a  reform  and  reorganization  of  our 
consular  system  has  long  been  evident.  Our  Secre- 
taries of  State  have  frequently  expressed  their  opin- 
ions on  this  subject,  and  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  in  1884, 
presented  to  Congress  the  draught  of  a  bill,  with  rec- 
ommendations about  salaries.  Although  this  was  in 
answer  to  a  wish  of  Congress  expressed  in  the  Appro-, 
priations  Act  of  1883,  no  attention  was  paid  to  it. 
President  Cleveland  has  as^ain  recommended  this 
subject  to  Congress  in  his  message  of  December  8, 
1885. 

Such  a  reform  should  have  in  view  the  requirement 
of  higher  qualifications   for   office,   more   permanent 


OUR   CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  lOI 

tenure,  the  promotion  of  efficient  and  experienced 
officers,  higher  salaries,  the  abolition  of  extra-official 
fees,  and  a  better  system  of  consular  inspection.  As 
consuls  are  in  no  sense  political  officers,  there  is  no 
reason  in  the  nature  of  things  why  the  principles  of 
Civil  Service  Reform  should  not  beappficd  to  fiiei 
consular  system.  But  in  order  to  accomplish  this, 
vacancies  in  the  higher  posts  should  be  filled  generally 
by  promotion  ;  appointments  of  new  men  should  be 
made  only  to  the  lower  grades  ;  and  the  number  of 
consular  clerks  should  be  greatly  increased,  so  as  to 
form  a  nucleus  of  young  men  acquainted  with  consu- 
lar duties,  from  which  promotions  could  be  made. 
The  experience  of  other  countries  shows  us  that  two 
of  the  strongest  incentives  to  good  official  work  are  a 
tenure  of  office  permanent  during  good  behavior,  and 
the  hope  of  promotion  and  reward.  If  these  be  as- 
sured him,  a  consul  will  do  efficient  service  for  years 
with  a  scanty  salary,  and  in  an  uncomfortable  and 
even  unhealthy  post. 

There  is  one  objection  to  long  tenure,  which  it 
seems  almost  absurd  to  mention, — that  a  consul 
would  become  denationalized  and  un-Americanized 
by  a  long  residence  abroad.  Englishmen  always  re- 
main Englishm.en  wherever  they  may  be;  but  as 
Americans  have  a  more  receptive  and  more  assimila- 
tive nature,  it  is  possible  that,  if  living  abroad  as  pri- 
vate persons,  either  for  the  necessities  of  their  business 


I02  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

or  for  their  own  ease  and  comfort,  Americans  might, 
in  length  of  time,  come  ahnost  to  identify  themselves 
in  feeling  with  the  people  among  whom  they  dwell. 
,  But  this  x:ould  scarcely  be  the  case  with  American  of- 
ficials, whose  sole  duty  is  to  care  for  American  interests 
ancj  -tp^prot^t  Anierican  rights,  who  read  American 
newspapers,  who  are  in  constant  relations  with  Amer- 
ica and  Americans,  and  whose  daily  work  is  with  in- 
terests counter  to  those  of  the  people  of  the  country 
where  he  lives.  On  the  contrary,  with  every  year  of 
his  stay  in  the  service  he  becomes  more  patriotic  and 
more  truly  American.  What  has  been  sometimes 
mistaken  for  a  want  of  American  feeling  is  the  neces- 
sary conformity  to  the  social  usages  of  the  country, 
the  adoption  of  new  modes  of  life,  which  with  ad- 
vancing years  becomes  a  second  nature ;  and  the  right 
feeling  of  every  sensible  man  which  induces  him  to 
look  at  the  good  rather  than  the  bad  points  of  a  peo- 
ple among  whom  he  has  long  lived.  But  all  coun- 
tries differ,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  no  reform  of  the 
service  would  compel  a  consul  to  live  always  at  the 
same  post  or  in  the  same  country. 

There  seems  to  be  current  an  exaggerated  notion 
of  what  consuls  can  do  for  trade.  In  reality  they  can 
do  little  more  than  furnish  information,  or  be  in  a 
condition  to  procure  it,  give  advice,  and  see  that  the 
merchant  in  foreign  lands  stands  in  no  worse  position 
than   those   of  other  countries.      English  commerce 


OUR   CONSULAR   SYSTEM.  IO3 

was  not  built  up  by  the  consuls.  The  shipping  agent, 
who  wished  a  return  cargo,  has  been  a  much  more 
important  factor.  The  English  consular  service,  how- 
ever, keeps  pace  with  commerce.  Owing  to  the 
rapid  development  of  manufactures  on  the  European 
continent,  and  the  consequent  commercial  rivalry 
with  England,  it  was  thought  best  to  have  someone 
abroad  who  could  take  in  the  whole  subject,  and  the 
English  consul  at  Diisseldorf  was,  a  few  years  ago, 
sent  to  join  the  English  Embassy  at  Berlin,  as  com- 
mercial attache  for  Germany.  Subsequently  his  func- 
tions were  extended  over  the  whole  of  Europe,  and 
he  was  transferred,  in  the  same  capacity,  to  Paris. 

The  best  results,  as  concerns  the  increase  of  foreign 
trade,  have,  probably,  been  obtained  by  the  consular 
service  of  Belgium.  Owing  to  the  efforts  of  M.  Lion 
d'Audrimont  in  1879  and  1880,  there  was  a  reform 
and  an  increase  of  this  service.  Voyages  of  commer- 
cial exploration  were  undertaken  in  Spain,  Italy,  and 
Southeastern  Europe.  One  consequence  was  the 
formation  of  a  museum  of  samples  of  the  products  of 
each  country,  and  of  the  styles  and  kinds  of  goods 
preferred  and  most  readily  purchased  in  foreign  coun- 
tries, in  order  to  familiarize  manufactures  with  what 
was  desired.  Belgian  ministers  were  instructed  to 
conclude  conventions  for  the  mutual  execution  of 
judgments  of  tribunals,  for  the  collection  of  debts,  for 
the  recognition  of  stock  companies,  and  for  the  extra- 


104  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

dition  of  criminals.  The  result  has  been  that  Belgian 
enterprise  has  greatly  prospered,  and  that  Belgian 
goods  and  Belgian  companies  are  rapidly  taking  the 
lead  in  Southeastern  Europe.  American  manufac- 
turers and  merchants  are  generally  careless  about 
foreign  trade,  except  when  the  home  market  is  small, 
and,  even  when  they  have  made  successful  beginnings 
in  foreign  trade,  they  are  apt  to  neglect  them  if  the 
home  market  revives.  (We  may  trace  here,  perhaps, 
the  influence  of  protection  or  particularism.)  They 
are  also  apt  to  insist  on  their  own  modes  of  credit 
and  of  doing  business,  without  regard  to  the  usages 
of  other  countries  ;  and,  paying  no  regard  to  the  pre- 
judice of  other  people  as  to  shapes,  sizes,  weight, 
width  and  style,  they  insist  that  whatever  suits 
America,  is  intrinsically  right  and  best,  and  should  be 
accepted  in  other  countries.  Do  what  he  may  to 
make  an  opening  for  American  manufactures  abroad, 
a  consul  cannot  overcome  in  this  respect  the  inertia 
and  obstinacy  of  American  manufacturers.  ^ 

*  It  should  be  remarked,  before  leaving  this  subject,  that 
almost  the  first  book  (one  by  a  Russian  was  published  almost 
simultaneously)  on  the  consular  system,  was  by  an  American. 
D.  B.  Warden,  our  consul  general  for  France,  published  at 
Paris  in  1813,  entitled  *'  On  the  Origin,  Nature,  Progress  and 
Influence  of  Consular  Establishments." 


III. 

DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS. 

Diplomacy,  its  Significance  and  Intention. — Rank  of  Repre- 
sentatives.— Rules  of  Vienna. — Ambassadors  and  Minis- 
ters.—Reasons  for  Sending  Ambassadors. — Etiquette  at 
Foreign  Offices. — Detrimental  Custom  at  Constantinople. 
— Ministers  Plenipotentiary  and  Ministers  Resident. — Ob- 
jections to  our  Practice. — A  Single  Class  of  Ministers 
Preferable. — Suggested  Change  in  the  Rules  of  Vienna. — 
Commissioners. — Diplomatic  Agents. — Secretaries  and 
Attaches. — Qualifications  for  Diplomatists. — French  the 
Language  of  Diplomacy. — Naturalized  Citizens. — Negroes. 
— Clerical  Diplomatists. — Appointments. — Letters  of  Cre- 
dence.— Request  for  Acceptance. — Etiquette  of  Recep- 
tion.— The  Question  of  Diplomatic  Uniform. — Social 
Duties. — Their  Advantages. — Hospitality  to  Americans. — 
Lord  Palmerston's  Views. — Mr.  Monroe. — Mr.  Schroeder. 
— Effect  of  the  Social  Isolation  of  a  Minister. — Duties  at 
a  Legation. — Despatches. — Complaints. — Naturalized  Citi- 
zens.— Commercial  Questions. — Requests  for  Presenta- 
tion at  Court. — Necessity  of  Resident  Ministers. — Lord 
Palmerston's  Opinion, — Union  of  Diplomatic  and  Consu- 
lar Functions. — Relative  Importance  of  Missions. — Sala- 
ries.— Allowances. — Outfits. 

While  consuls,  as  we  have  seen,  are  charged  pri- 
marily with  the  commercial  interests  of  their  country 
and  with  the  protection  of  individual  rights,  the 
maintenance  of  friendly  relations  between  states  and 


I06  AMERICAN-  DIPLOMACY. 

the  settlement  of  disputes  which  may  arise  between 
them  are  entrusted  to  agents  of  another,  of  a  higher 
class  and  with  different  functions,  under  the  gen- 
eral name  of  diplomatic  agents  or,  more  briefly, 
diplomats.* 

The  word  diplomacy  itself  occurs  in  its  modern 
sense  only  toward  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
In  French  it  is  said  to  be  first  used  by  Count  Ver- 
gennes,  and  in  English,  I  believe,  was  employed  for 
the  first  time  by  Burke,  although  not  exactly  in  its 
present  sense.  The  word  has  had  a  long  history  to 
reach  its  present  meaning.  The  science  of  diplo- 
matics, the  study  of  ancient  charters,  documents,  and 
diplomas,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  science  of 
diplomacy.  According  to  Calvo,  who  is  now  generally 
accepted  as  the  best  modern  writer  of  international 
law,t 

"  Diplomacy  is  the  science  of  the  relations  existing  between 
different  states,  such  as  result  from  their  reciprocal  interests, 
the  principles  of  international  law  and  the  stipulations  of  trea- 
ties or  conventions.  The  knowledge  of  the  rules  and  of  the 
usages  resulting  from  them  is  indispensable  to  conduct  public 
affairs  properly  and  to  carry  on  political  negotiations.  There- 
fore, we  may  say,  in  more  concise  terms,  that  diplomacy  is 
the  science  of  relations,  or  simply  the  art  of  negotiations. 
.     .     .     The  essential  nature    of  diplomacy  is  to    assure    the 

*  This  convenient  word,  which  is  borrowed  from  the  French  diplomate^ 
is  now  commonly  used  for  every  diplomatic  official. 

t  Calvo  (Carlos),  like  Wheaton,  is  an  American,  though  from  the  Ar- 
gentine Republic. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS,  lO/ 

well-being  of  peoples,  to  maintain  between  them  peace  and 
good  harmony,  while  guaranteeing  the  safety,  the  tranquiUity, 
and  the  dignity  of  each  of  them.  The  part  played  by  diplo- 
matic agents  consists  principally  in  conducting  negotiations 
relative  to  these  important  objects,  in  watching  over  the  exe- 
cution of  the  treaties  which  follow  from  them,  in  preventing 
anything  which  might  injure  the  interests  of  their  fellow- 
citizens  in  the  countries  where  they  reside,  and  in  protecting 
those  of  them  who  may  be  obliged  to  ask  for  their  assistance."* 

Every  nation,  as  the  result  of  its  independence,  has 
the  theoretical  right  of  being  represented  by  agents  of 
whatever  rank  it  may  choose,  and  of  receiving  or  not 
the  agents  of  other  countries.  According  to  princi- 
ples now  universally  accepted,  every  nation  is  in  this 
way  equal  with  every  other ;  but  formerly  so  many 
disputes  arose  from  personal  considerations,  from  the 
rank  of  the  agents,  and  from  the  real  or  assumed  im- 
portance of  the  countries  which  sent  them,  that  the 
Congress  at  Vienna,  in  1815,  which  regulated  for  the 
time  being  the  affairs  of  Europe,  felt  it  necessary  to 
lay  down  certain  rules,  which  have  since  then  been 
followed  by  all  civilized  countries,  and  which  the 
United  States  have  formally  accepted.t     According 

*Le  Droit  International,  third  edition,  i.,  455,  457. 

t  It  would  take  too  long  to  tell  here  of  the  constant  and 
ridiculous  disputes  for  precedence  at  the  Congresses  of  Nyme- 
gen,  Ryswyk,  and  Utrecht.  The  footmen's  quarrel  at  Utrecht 
forms  the  subject  of  an  amusing  article  in  the  Spectator. 
Many  interesting  details  on  this  and  similar  subjects  may 
be  found  in  Four  Lectures  on  Subjects  connected  with  Diplo- 
macy, by  the  late  Montague  Bernard ;  in  a  very  entertaining 


I08  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

to  these  rules  diplomatic  agents  were  divided  into 
three  classes  :  First,  Ambassadors,  Legates,  or  Nuncios, 
these  latter  two  being  sent  by  the  Pope  only ;  second, 
Envoys,  Ministers  Plenipotentiary,  or  other  persons 
accredited  to  a  sovereign  or  a  sovereign  state ;  third, 
Charges  d  'Affaires,  who  are  accredited  only  to  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.  The  Congress  at  Aix-la- 
Chapelle,  in  1 8 1 8,  completed  this  classification  by  allow- 
ing another  class  called  Ministers  Resident,  who  were 
to  take  rank  between  envoys  and  charges  d'affaires.* 

though  light  book,  Embassies  and  Foreign  Courts,  by  "  The 
Roving  Englishman,"  the  late  E.  C.  Grenville  Murray  ;  and  in 
International  Vanities,  by  E.  Marshall. 

*  The  rules  on  this  subject  which  have  been  prescribed  by 
the  Department,  are  the  same  as  those  contained  in  the  seven 
rules  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna  found  in  the  protocol  of  the 
session  of  March  9,  181 5,  and  in  the  supplementary  or  eighth 
rule  of  the  Congress  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  of  November  21,  1818. 
They  are  as  follows  : 

Article  I.  Diplomatic  agents  are  divided  into  three  classes  : 
That  of  ambassadors,  legates,  or  nuncios  ;  that  of  envoys, 
ministers,  or  other  persons  accredited  to  sovereigns  ;  that  of 
charges  d'affaires  accredited  to  ministers  for  foreign  affairs. 

Art.  II.  Ambassadors,  legates,  or  nuncios  only  have  the 
representative  character. 

Art.  III.  Diplomatic  agents  on  an  extraordinary  mission 
have  not,  on  that  account,  any  superiority  of  rank. 

Art.  IV.  Diplomatic  agents  shall  take  precedence  in  their 
respective  classes  according  to  the  date  of  the  official  notifica- 
tion of  their  arrival.  The  present  regulation  shall  not  cause 
any  innovation  with  regard  to  the  representative  of  the  Pope. 

Art.  V.  A  uniform  mode  shall  be  determined  in  each  state 
for  the  reception  of  diplomatic  agents  of  each  class. 

Art.  VI.  Relations  of  consanguinity  or  of  family  alliance 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  109 

According  to  the  old  system,  ambassadors  were 
supposed  to  represent  not  only  the  country  but  the 
person  of  the  sovereign,  and  were,  therefore,  given 
various  higher  ceremonial  honors  than  those  accorded 
to  other  diplomatic  agents.  They  had  also  the  right 
to  address  themselves  personally  to  the  sovereign  or 
chief  magistrate  of  the  country  to  which  they  were 
sent,  for  matters  of  business,  instead  of  going  through 
the  usual  routine  of  negotiating  with  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs.  In  actual  practice  ambassadors  now- 
adays have  no  rights  of  representation  superior  to 
ministers,  and  differ  from  them  only  in  rank  and 
precedence.  The  sovereign  of  a  country  is  now  gen- 
erally so  merged  in  the  government  of  the  country, 
that  it  is  practically  impossible  for  an  ambassador  to 
conduct  any  business  except   through   the  interven- 

betvveen  courts,  confer  no  precedence  on  their  diplomatic 
agents.     The  same  rule  also  applies  to  political  alliances. 

Art.  VII.  In  acts  or  treaties  between  several  powers  which 
grant  alternate  precedence,  the  order  which  is  to  be  observed 
in  the  signatures  shall  be  decided  by  lot  between  the  min- 
isters. 

Art.  VIII.  .  .  .  It  is  agreed  that  ministers  resident 
accredited  to  them  shall  form,  with  respect  to  their  prece- 
dence, an  intermediate  class  between  ministers  of  the  second 
class  and  charges  d'affaires. 

These  rules  have  been  formally  or  tacitly  accepted  by  all 
Governments  except  the  Ottoman  Porte,  which  divides  diplo- 
matic representatives  into  three  classes  only — ambassadors, 
ministers,  and  charges  d'affaires. — Register  of  the  Department 
of  State,  1884,  p.  14. 


no  A  ME  RICA  N  DIPL  OMA  C  V. 

tion  of  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs.  The  personal 
interests  of  the  sovereign  are  looked  after  by  some 
private  agent,  or  by  some  one  specially  sent  on  occa- 
sions of  grand  ceremony.  The  whole  theory  of  the 
particular  rights  of  ambassadors  seems  to  turn  in  a 
vicious  circle.  Ambassadors  are  accorded  higher  privi- 
leges, because  they  are  supposed  to  represent  person- 
ally the  sovereign,  and  they  represent  the  sovereign 
personally  only  because  they  have  higher  privileges. 
It  is,  however,  in  great  part  owing  to  this  theory  that 
the  United  States  have  never  sent  ambassadors,  al- 
though expressly  allowed  to  do  so  by  the  terms  of  the 
Constitution*  There  has  been  a  feeling  that  as  there 
is  no  sovereign  to  represent,  it  would  be  improper 
to  send  ambassadors.  This,  however,  has  not  been 
the  case  with  other  republics.  In  olden  times  Venice, 
as  well  as  the  States-General  of  Holland,  sent  am- 
bassadors, although  they  had  no  sovereign  to  represent ; 
and  in  our  own  days  the  French  republic  continues 
to  send  ambassadors,  as  has  been  the  practice  of  that 
country  under  all  its  various  forms  of  government. 
The  French  even  send  an  ambassador  to  Switzerland, 
the  only  one  accredited  to  that  republic.  Calvo,  in 
speaking  of  this,  says  : 

*'  The  difference  between  agents  of  the  second  class — that  is, 
ministers  and  envoys — and  those  of  the  first— =-that  •  is,  ambas- 
sadors—is rather  hard  to  state.  Several  publicists  have  main- 
tained that  the  latter  have  a  formal  right  of  treating  directly 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  Ill 

with  the  sovereigns,  of  which  the  others  are  deprived.  But 
this  is  a  distinction  without  meaning,  especially  since  the  or- 
ganization of  modern  nations  no  longer  rests  exclusively  upon 
the  monarchical  principle,  and  therefore  renders  it  impossi- 
ble for  sovereigns  personally  to  conduct  international  negotia- 
tions. The  only  rational  distinction  that  can  be  established 
between  the  first  two  classes  of  diplomatic  agents  ought  to 
have  for  a  basis  some  essential  difference  in  their  attributes. 
Hence  the  subtleties  imagined  by  certain  authors,  who  at- 
tribute to  agents  of  the  first  class  a  permanent  and  general 
representation  of  the  person  of  their  sovereign,  while  those  of 
the  second  class  have  this  character  only  in  a  transitory  way 
and  for  a  special  object,  clash  with  the  reality  of  things.  In 
our  eyes  the  agents  of  the  first  two  classes  are  exactly  on  the 
same  line  from  the  point  of  view  of  their  character  as  of  their 
duties  and  powers,  and  are  distinguished  from  each  other  only 
hierarchically  by  the  difference  of  the  title  by  which  they  are 
designated.*  " 

Professor  Martens  says  : 

''  Considered  from  the  point  of  view  of  international  law,  all 
diplomatic  agents,  without  regard  to  their  class,  are  equal. 
This  equality  is  shown  by  their  all  possessing,  in  like  degree, 
all  diplomatic  rights.  .  .  .  Many  writers  have  tried  to  in- 
fer from  the  rules  of  Vienna  that  ambassadors,  as  representing 
the  person  of  their  sovereign,  have,  in  distinction  from  other 
diplomatic  agents,  the  formal  right  of  treating  with  the  sov- 
ereign to  whom  they  are  sent,  and  of  being  received  in  au- 
dience by  him  at  any  time.  We  cannot  admit  this  inference. 
As  Prince  Bismarck  opportunely  remarked,  no  ambassador  has 
a  right  to  demand  a  personal  interview  with  the  sovereign. 
The  constitutional  government  of  west-European  monarchies 
compels  ambassadors  to  treat  with  the  Minister  of  Foreign 

*  Droit  International,  i. ,  p.  474. 


112  A  M ERIC  A  N  DIFL  OMA  C  V. 

Affairs.  Finally,  it  is  untrue  that  ambassadors  always  repre- 
sent the  personality  of  the  monarch  ;  France,  for  example, 
appoints  ambassadors,  though  its  form  of  government  is  re- 
publican. .  .  According  to  the  text  of  Art.  II.  of  the  Vienna 
rules  envoys  are  deprived  of  the  representative  character.  In 
point  of  fact  they  could  not  perform  their  duties,  if  they  did 
not  represent  their  state.  They  really  differ  from  ambassadors 
only  in  the  title  and  in  their  lower  salaries."  * 

Baron  de  Neumann  says  : 

"  The  four  classes  have  the  diplomatic  character,  for  they 
all  represent  the  sovereign,  and  mere  charges  d'affaires  often 
have  to  treat  about  interests  as  important,  if  not  more  so,  than 
ambassadors  themselves. "f    • 

Our  system  in  this  respect  is  a  bad  one,  and  contrary 
to  our  interests.  We  have  no  ambassadors,  we  have 
comparatively  few  envoys  extraordinary  and  minis- 
ters plenipotentiary,  but  seem  to  prefer  ministers  res- 
ident, and  even  in  the  case  of  Paraguay  and  Uruguay 
retain  the  lowest  rank,  with  its  un-English  name  of 
charge  d'affaires.  Our  interests  certainly  demand 
that  in  every  country  we  should  be  represented  by 

*  Vdlkerrecht.  Das  Internationale  Recht  der  civilisirter  na- 
tionen,  von  Friedrich  von  Martens.  Berlin,  1886.  Vol.  ii. 
pp.  32-34.  As  Martens,  besides  being  Professor  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  St.  Petersburg,  and  member  of  the  Institut  du 
droit  international,  is  a  councillor  of  the  Russian  Foreign 
Office,  his  views  may  be  taken  to  represent  the  opinions  of  the 
Russian  government. 

f  Elements  die  droit  desgens  moderne  Europeen  par  Le  Baron 
Leopold  de  Neumann,  p.  240.     Paris,  1886. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  I13 

agents  of  the  highest  title  known  or  accepted  there. 
The  ministers  of  the  United  States  should  be  able  to 
take  rank  on  equal  terms  with  those  of  all  other 
countries.  This  is  not  simply  a  question  of  rank  and 
precedence,  it  has  practical  sides.  At  very  many 
Foreign  Offices  the  rule  "  first  come,  first  served  "  is  not 
observed  ;  but  an  envoy  or  a  minister,  though  he  may 
have  been  waiting  hours  in  the  ante-chamber  for  an 
important  affair,  must  give  place  to  an  ambassador 
who  has  come  in  at  the  moment ;  and  at  Constanti- 
nople it  is  even  expected  that,  should  a  minister  be 
in  conversation  with  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
or  the  Grand  Vizier,  he  should  withdraw  and  wait 
whenever  an  ambassador  may  be  announced.  In  some 
countries  a  different  rule  is  observed.  In  Russia  it 
has  been  for  many  years  the  custom  for  the  minister 
to  receive  the  foreign  representatives  in  the  order  in 
which  they  arrive  at  his  office,  without  regard  to  their 
rank.  This  rule  was  brought  into  force  at  Berlin, 
owing  to  a  personal  dispute  between  Mr.  Bancroft, 
our  minister,  and  the  British  ambassador.  Mr.  Ban- 
croft, after  having  waited  a  long  time  for  an  audience, 
was  on  one  occasion  obliged  to  yield  to  the  British 
ambassador,  who  had  that  moment  arrived.  As  the 
ambassador  was  personally  disagreeable  to  the  Chan- 
cellor, and  Mr.  Bancroft  was  a  friend  of  his,  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  injustice  done  to  the  United  States 
and  its  representative  brought  about  a  change  of  rule. 


1 1 4  AMERICAN  DIPL OMA  C F. 

Nor  are  mere  questions  of  rank  and  precedence  to 
be  entirely  disregarded.  The  United  States  has  every 
right  to  hold  one  of  the  first  ranks  among  nations ; 
but  according  to  the  present  system,  by  which  the 
ambassador  longest  in  service  becomes  the  doyen  of 
the  diplomatic  body,  and  therefore  its  president  and 
spokesman  on  extraordinary  occasions,  which  may 
make  necessary  a  consultation  or  even  a  protest  of 
that  body  in  order  to  protect  the  rights  of  all  for- 
eigners, the  representative  of  the  United  States  must 
always  hold  a  subordinate  position.  If  his  opinions 
have  weight,  it  is  more  through  his  personal  influence, 
or  the  respect  paid  to  his  tact,  discretion,  and  learning, 
than  from  the  importance  of  the  country  he  repre- 
sents. In  many,  perhaps  in  most  cases  of  a  diplomatic 
reunion,  this  is  of  slight  consequence.  But  there  are 
other  cases  where  the  minister  of  the  United  States, 
if  he  had  more  official  authority,  could  manage  to 
have  matters  arranged  which  ultimately  affect  our  in- 
terests. At  Constantinople,  for  instance,  where  there 
is  an  effort  to  undermine  the  treaty  rights  of  all  for- 
eigners, the  ambassadors  have  of  late  taken  up  the 
habit  of  meeting  one  another  in  an  unofficial  way  and 
in  laying  down  rules,  and  in  taking  action  on  extra- 
territorial questions,  which  are  then  proposed  to  the 
rest  of  the  diplomatic  body ;  i.e.,  in  general  the  repre- 
tatives  of  the  smaller  states  are  asked  for  their  ap- 
proval or  rejection,  but  are  given  no  chance  to  suggest 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  II5 

or  argue.  •  Our  government  found  it  necessary,  three 
or  four  years  ago,  to  protest  against  this  course,  for 
it  was  beginning  to  be  tacitly  understood  that  only 
the  ambassadors  of  what  were  called  the  Signatory 
Powers — that  is,  of  those  which  had  signed  the  Treaty 
of  Berlin  in  1878 — should  have  any  voice  in  matters 
which  affected  the  interests  of  all  foreigners  in  Tur- 
key. Our  protest  had  the  theoretical  result  of  bring- 
ing about  occasional  conferences  of  all  foreign  repre- 
sentatives; but  the  practice  has  remained  much  as 
before. 

There  is,  I  am  aware,  another  objection,  more  theo- 
retical than  real,  to  the  appointment  of  ambassadors, 
that  as  they  are  expected  to  represent  the  country 
socially  in  a  far  finer  and  grander  style  than  minis- 
ters, very  much  larger  salaries  would  be  required. 
This  objection,  however,  is  more  apparent  than  real ; 
for  while  a  certain  amount  of  expense  is  necessary,  it  is 
just  as  necessary  to  a  minister  as  to  an  ambassador  who 
wishes  to  represent  properly  his  country  or  carry  on 
his  business.  Our  ministers  should  in  any  case  receive 
pay  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  live  in  the  style 
becoming  their  rank,  and  not  be  obliged  always  to 
study  how  to  make  two  ends  meet,  in  countries  where 
expenses  are  great  and  where  a  foreign  representative 
is  compelled  to  pay  higher  prices  than  those  usually 
paid  by  the  natives  of  the  country.     But  of  this  later. 

Between  the  two  classes  of  Envoy  Extraordinary 


Il6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  and  of  Minister  Resident 

there  is  absolutely  no  difference  of  duties,  functions, 

J' 

or  privileges,  scarcely  even  of  ceremonial.  The'^^sole 
difference  is  one  of  rank  and  precedence.  The  social 
duties  are  exactly  the  same,  and  the  increase  in  rank 
of  the  representatives  in  jio  way  implies  an  increase 
of  salary  or  expenditure.  The  question  of  mere  rank 
is,  however,  not  without  importance.  At  the  capitals 
of  the  smaller  states  of  Europe,  all  the  great  powers, 
and  nearly  all  the  small  ones,  keep  ministers  pleni- 
potentiary ;  the  United  States  maintain  merely  minis- 
ters resident,  who  take  rank  after  most  of  their  col- 
leagues, and  at  times  after  the  representatives  of  petty 
principalities.  Not  only  is  the  position  of  our  min- 
ister a  false  one,  but  he  is  not  as  well  regarded  by  the 
court  to  which  he  is  sent,  which  resents  the  implica- 
tion that  it  is  regarded  as  of  too  slight  consequence 
to  be  treated  as  it  prefers,  and  as  it  claims  to  be 
treated,  even  where  the  politeness  would  not  add  a 
cent  to  our  budget.  To  the  countries  of  South  and 
Central  America,  unless  perhaps  Brazil,  ambassadors 
have  never  been  sent ;  it  is  therefore  easy  for  us,  the 
preponderating  power  in  this  hemisphere,  to  be  so  rep- 
resented as  to  have  a  predominating  influence.  Un- 
fortunately we  do  not  always  do  this,  but  we  keep 
ministers  resident  and  charges  d'affaires  in  capitals 
where  other  states  have  envoys.  The  case  is  much 
the  same  in  Asia.     We  were  the  first  to  open  com- 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  11/ 

mercial  relations  with  Corea,  and  after  a  treaty  had 
been  made  by  Admiral  Shufeldt,  we  sent  an  envoy 
extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary.  As  the 
first  representative  and  of  the  highest  rank,  he  took 
the  lead  of  his  colleagues,  who  arrived  subsequently, 
in  arranging  the  terms  of  diplomatic  and  consular 
intercourse.  His  counsels  were  respected  and  his  ad- 
vice followed  both  by  his  colleagues  and  by  the  Co- 
rean  government,  inexperienced  in  dealing  with  for- 
eigners. A  year  or  two  afterward,  through  some  freak 
of  the  subcommittee  on  appropriations,  his  rank  was 
reduced  to  minister  resident.  From  the  head  of  the 
diplomatic  body  he  went  to  the  foot,  and  the  Corean 
government,  supposing  naturally  that  his  official  con- 
duct had  been  disapproved,  treated  him  accordingly. 
American  influence  in  Corea  was  temporarily  extin- 
guished. 

There  is  one  simple  solution  for  all  such  difficulties, 
to  give  the  same  title  to  all  our  chief  representatives, 
— i.e.,  if  we  still  refuse  to  appoint  ambassadors,  to 
abolish  ministers  resident  and  charges  d'affaires,  and 
have  none  but  envoys  extraordinary  and  ministers 
plenipotentiary.  Questions  of  rank  ought  not  to  be 
complicated  by  questions  of  pay,  which  should  be 
fixed  according  to  the  expenses  incidental  and  neces- 
sary to  the  different  posts,  and  it  would  be  wise  to 
appoint  a  man  simply  to  the  rank  or  office  without 
specifying  the  particular  place  at  which  he  is  to   re- 

i' 


1 1 8  .  A  M ERIC  A  N  DIPL  OMA  C  V. 

side.*  This  would  be  assimilating  his  appointment 
to  that  of  an  army  or  a  naval  officer,  and  would  allow 
the  Department  to  assign  him  to  any  post  where  he 
might  at  the  time  do  the  best  service,  without  the 
necessity  of  a  new  confirmation.  It  would  then  re- 
quire only  a  tenure  of  office  during  good  behavior, 
and  the  possession  of  the  necessary  qualifications  as  a 
preliminary  to  appointment,  to  make  our  diplomatic 
system  comply  with  all  the  requisites  of  the  best  civil 
service. 

It  would  seem  that  the  time  had  come  when  the 
rules  of  Vienna  might  properly  and  profitably  be  re- 
vised. Useful  as  they  have  been  in  some  ways,  they 
were  imposed  on  the  world  by  the  great  powers  of 
Europe  seventy  years  ago,  when  the  state  of  things 
was  very  different  from  now.f  The  United  States 
was  then  a  small  and  insignificant  power ;  there  was 
no  other  independent  state  on  this  continent ;  no 
diplomatic  relations  had  been  begun  with  the  coun- 
tries of  Asia.  For  such  a  revision  it  is,  however,  nec- 
essary to  have  the  general  consent  of  nations.  We 
could  not  carry  it  through  alone,  but  we  might  take 
the  lead  in  proposing  it.  The  change  should  be  a 
very  simple  one :  that  there  should  be  but  one  class 

*  A  recommendation  to  this  effect  was  contained  in  Presi- 
dent Arthur's  annual  message  of  December,  1884, 

f  Even  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  Lord  Castlereagh  objected 
to  the  classification  on  general  principles. 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  II9 

of  diplomatic  agents  instead  of  four  classes,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  all  chief  diplomatic  representatives,  or 
heads  of  missions,  should  be  equal  among  themselves, 
both  officially  and  ceremonially,  no  matter  by  what 
title  their  governments  should  choose  to  call  them. 
This  would  make  an  actual  instead  of  a  fictitious 
equality  between  sovereign  states,  would  simplify  cere- 
monial, and  would  at  the  same  time  allow  each  state 
to  use  for  domestic  purposes  such  a  hierarchy  as 
seemed  good  to  it.  Such  a  proposal,  if  properly  and 
cautiously  presented,  would  probably  be  sure  of  the 
support  of  all  the  world,  except  some  of  the  great 
powers  of  Europe ;  but  even  they  would  not  be  slow 
to  see  its  advantages. 

Among  subordinate  diplomatic  representatives  are 
commissioners  and  diplomatic  agents,  strictly  so  styled. 
Commissioners  or  commissaries  are  frequently  sent 
for  the  settlement  of  special  questions,  as,  for  instance, 
indemnities  to  be  paid  after  a  war  for  losses  incurred, 
or  boundary  disputes.  They  are  not  generally  given 
either  the  rank  or  the  privilege  of  diplomatic  agents, 
even  though  they  be  in  the  diplomatic  service.  An- 
other class  of  commissioners,  who  are  strictly  political 
agents,  are  occasionally  sent  out  without  its  being 
thought  desirable  to  define  exactly  their  rank,  but 
they  are  usually  received  as  ministers.  Such  are  com- 
missioners to  conclude  a  treaty,  such  as  we  have  our- 
selves sent  to  China  and  Mexico  on   different  occa- 


I20  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

sions,  and  of  this  character  is  the  English  commissioner 
on  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  who  ranks  as  a  minister 
resident.  In  certain  cases,  with  countries  which  are 
only  semi-independent,  such  as  Roumania  and  Ser- 
bia before  the  last  war  between  Russia  and  Turkey, 
such  as  Bulgaria  and  Egypt  now,  it  has  been  thought 
advisable  to  send  persons  empowered  to  perform  dip- 
lomatic functions,  but  who,  on  account  of  the  peculiar 
relations  of  the  country  to  its  suzerain,  can  be  given 
no  special  title,  and  are  therefore  called  simply  "  dip- 
lomatic agents."  The  consul-general  is  usually  ap- 
pointed to  this  post.  The  only  diplomatic  agent  we 
have  at  present  is  in  Egypt.  One  in  Bulgaria  is  very 
necessary,  for  there  are  a  number  of  resident  Ameri- 
cans who  need  protection,  and  there  is  no  one  to  af- 
ford it.  There  is  not  even  a  consul  or  consular  agent 
of  the  United  States  anywhere  in  Bulgaria  or  Eastern 
Roumelia.  These  countries  are  still  nominally  in  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  minister  and  consul-general  at 
Constantinople ;  but,  as  every  one  knows,  the  state  of 
relations  are  such  that  these  officials  would  have  no 
way  of  communicating  effectively  with  the  Bulgarian 
government.  Americans  are  therefore  placed  under 
the  kindly  care  of  the  English  diplomatic  agent.  In 
some  cases  it  has  been  necessaiy  to  have  recourse  to 
Americans  outside  of  Bulgaria,  who  happened  to  have 
influence  there. 

Even  in  the  lesser  diplomatic  posts  our  Government 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  121 

has  been  as  careless  of  the  proprieties  as  in  greater 
ones.  An  example  may  be  given  of  our  hap-hazard 
way  of  proceeding.  In  1880  it  was  decided  to  ap- 
point a  diplomatic  representative  at  Bucarest,  and  the 
title  chosen  by  Congress  was  "  Diplomatic  Agent 
and  Consul-General."  The  person  appointed  to  that 
post  suggested  to  the  State  Department  all  the  diffi- 
culties that  might  arise,  as  Roumania,  being  then  in- 
dependent both  in  fact  and  by  treaty,  would  insist  on 
having  a  diplomatic  representative  called  by  one  of 
the  titles  agreed  to  by  the  rules  of  the  Congress  of 
Vienna.  He  was,  therefore,  accredited  directly  to  the 
sovereign,  with  the  expectation  that  he  might  come  in 
under  the  general  clause  of  "  other  persons  accredited 
to  sovereigns."  *  This,  however,  the  Roumanians 
refused  to  permit,  and  for  some  months  he  was  re- 
fused any  official  recognition.  They  agreed  to  recog- 
nize him  as  consul-general,  and  unofficially  as  diplo- 
matic "  representative  "  of  the  United  States  until  a 
change  could  be  made.  It  became  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  alter  his  title  to^  that  of  Charge  d'Affaires  ; 
and  it  was  only  when  he  received  his  commission  as 
such,  accredited  not  to  the  Prince  but  to  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  that  he  was  considered  to  belong 
to  the  diplomatic  body  and  allowed  to  treat  officially 
with  the  government. 

A  legation  or  embassy  comprises,  in  most  cases,  be- 
*  Rules  of  Vienna,  Art.  I. 


122  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

sides  the  minister,  one  or  more  persons,  known  either 
as  counsellors  of  embassy,  secretaries  of  legation,  or 
attaches.  Of  these  only  secretaries  of  legation  are 
recognized  by  our  system,  and  for  many  of  our  lega- 
tions none  are  appointed.  At  Paris,  London,  Berlin, 
Tokio,  and  Pekin  there  is  a  first  and  a  second  secre- 
tary. Attaches  were  formerly  allowed,  though  they 
were  appointed  by  the  minister  and  not  by  the  Gov- 
ernment. They  received  no  pay,  but  were  expected  to 
assist  in  all  the  work  of  the  legation.  This  has  now 
been  forbidden  by  act  of  Congress.  In  order  prop- 
erly to  do  the  work  of  the  legation,  it  is  frequently 
necessary  to  appoint  more  persons,  but  they  are  con- 
sidered only  as  clerks,  without  any  diplomatic  privi- 
lege or  rank.  In  Spain,  where  there  is  a  great  deal  of 
business,  only  one  secretary  is  allowed,  and  it  is  nec- 
essary to  employ  a  clerk.  If  we  are  ever  to  have  any 
system  in  our  management  of  foreign  affairs  it  will  be 
wise  to  have  a  number  of  young  men,  more  even  than 
would  be  absolutely  necessary,  who,  by  becoming  ac- 
quainted with  various  countries,  and  with  various 
languages,  and  by  obtaining  experience  of  diplomatic 
life,  would  be  fit  persons  to  be  sent  as  agents,  either 
regularly  in  the  career  or  in  any  case  of  emergency. 
It  would  be  we\l  even  for  the  Government  to  appoint 
several  secretaries  of  legation  at  large,  and  in  certain 
cases  attaches,  who  should  receive  little  or  no  salary 
until  they  became  secretaries  of  legation.     There  are 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  1 23 

always  young  men  of  independent  means  desirous 
of  such  positions,  and  perfectly  able  and  willing  to 
do  the  necessary  work.  Such  appointments,  however, 
should  be  regulated  by  the  Department  of  State, 
and  not  by  the  minister  alone,  and  the  necessary 
qualifications  should  be  rigorously  demanded. 

During  the  absence  of  a  minister,  the  senior  secre- 
tary of  legation  acts  as  charge  d'affaires  ad  interim, 
without  special  credentials  ;  and  by  our  laws  he  is  en- 
titled to  an  allowance  equal  to  half  the  salary  of  the 
minister,  which  is  paid  separately  and  not  deducted 
from  the  minister's  salary.  His  salary  as  secretary  of 
legation  ceases  for  that  time.  In  the  English  service, 
and  in  some  others,  the  secretary  of  legation  receives, 
in  addition  to  his  own  salary,  an  allowance,  paid  out 
of  the  minister's  salary,  varying  from  five  to  thirty 
dollars  per  day.  As  a  special  exception  the  English 
secretary  in  Paris,  when  acting  as  charge  d'affaires, 
is  accredited  with  the  title  of  minister  resident. 

The  qualifications  for  employment  in  the  diplo- 
matic service  consist  in  most  other  countries  of  a 
knowledge  of  French,  and,  generally,  of  at  least  one 
other  language ;  a  good  acquaintance  with  history, 
treaties,  public  and  international  law.  One  other 
qualification  is  absolutely  necessary,  at  all  events  in 
civilized  countries,  that  the  person  appointed  should 
be  a  gentleman,  that  is,  acquainted  with  the  ways  of 
the  world  and  the  usages  and  manners  of  the  best  so- 


124  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ciety  in  each  capital  in  which  he  will  be  expected  to 
move — that  of  the  governing  classes.  1  do  not  mean 
that  what  is  called  good  birth,  or  belonging  to  a  well- 
known  family  should  be  essential,  although  the  son 
or  grandson  of  a  President  of  the  United  States,  for 
example,  would  always  have  more  credit  and  influence 
in  the  place  to  which  he  was  sent  than  one  of  whom 
nothing  was  known.  Considerations  of  this  kind 
make  it  difficult  to  recommend  the  results  of  a  simple 
examination  as  showing  the  qualifications  necessary 
for  a  diplomatic  agent.  Temper,  manners,  position, 
tact,  shrewdness  must  all  enter  into  the  composition 
of  the  agent  best  qualified  to  do  his  country  service. 
I  remember  a  Russian  diplomat  saying  to  me  that 
after  they  had  all  passed  the  diplomatic  examination, 
each  candidate  was  in  turn  received  by  Prince  Gort- 
chakof,  who,  all  other  things  being  equal,  judged  a 
great  deal  of  his  fitness  for  the  post  by  the  manner  in 
which  he  entered  the  room  and  addressed  him. 

I  have  mentioned  a  knowledge  of  French  as  being 
absolutely  necessary.  This  is  certainly  true  in  all 
European  countries.  It  might  be  sufficient  for  a  dip- 
lomat to  have  a  good  knowledge  of  the  language  of 
the  country  to  which  he  is  sent,  especially  in  South 
America,  but  as  other  foreigners  and  colleagues  will 
often  know  nothing  but  French,  and  as  it  is  necessary 
to  keep  on  friendly  relations  with  them,  this  is  also 
essential.     French  is  the  generally  received  language 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 25 

of  diplomacy  in  Europe.  In  China  and  Japan  Eng- 
lish is  more  usually  the  language.  In  South  Amer- 
ica Spanish  is  used  in  all  countries  except  Brazil.  It 
is  the  habit  of  both  England  and  the  United  States, 
however,  to  use  English  as  the  official  language,  and 
for  their  ministers  to  write  in  that  tongue  all  notes 
and  despatches  sent  to  the  government  to  which  they 
are  accredited.  In  most  cases  it  is  found  convenient 
to  accompany  the  official  English  notes  with  an  un- 
official French  translation,  in  order  to  save  time  and 
to  obtain  speedy  answers,  as  not  all  Foreign  Offices 
have  an  English  translator  at  hand.  French  is  also 
the  general  language  of  treaties,  but  it  has  become 
common  for  a  treaty  to  be  drawn  up  in  the  two  lan- 
guages of  the  two  countries  which  make  it,  either  text 
being  considered  as  official.  For  this,  of  course,  very 
careful  translations  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
language  are  necessary.  Just  after  the  Franco-Ger- 
man war  an  attempt  was  made  to  introduce  German 
as  a  diplomatic  language,  and  the  German  ambassador 
at  St.  Petersburg  stated  his  intention  to  Prince  Gort- 
chakof  to  write  to  him  in  the  future  in  that  language. 
"  Certainly,"  said  the  Prince,  "  we  all  understand  Ger^ 
man.  Of  course  you  must  expect  our  replies  to  be  in 
Russian."  Nothing  more  was  heard  of  the  proposition. 
Among  other  things  a  minister,  should  be  a  man 
who  has  already  lived  in  foreign  countries,  and  is  to 
some  degree  acquainted  with  their  usages  and  cus- 


126  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

tomSj  even  if  he  has  not  already  been  in  the  service 
and  acquired  a  knowledge  of  the  rules  of  diplomacy. 
It  would  be  better  that  he  should  be  a  native  of 
America  than  a  naturalized  citizen,  and  in  any  case 
he  should  not  be  sent  back  to  the  country  of  his 
birth.  Persons  of  foreign  birth  have  been  at  times 
in  the  diplomatic  service  of  all  countries,  owing  to 
certain  special  qualifications  or  to  peculiar  circum- 
stances. St.  Saphorin,  who  was  the  Hanoverian  and 
English  envoy  to  Vienna  at  the  beginning  of  the 
last  century,  was  of  Swiss  origin ;  so  is  also  Baron 
Jomini,  the  son  of  the  celebrated  writer  on  war,  who, 
although  not  holding  a  diplomatic  position,  has  been 
for  a  long  time  one  of  the  high  officials  of  the  Russian 
Foreign  Office.  Owing  to  the  inter-connections  of  the 
German  States  it  has  not  been  uncommon  for  a  na- 
tive of  one  to  be  an  official  in  the  service  of  another ; 
and  in  this  way,  after  the  war  of  1866,  Count  Beust, 
who  had  been  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  Saxony, 
was  taken  to  Vienna  in  the  same  capacity.  Still,  it  is 
better  to  avoid  this.  A  native  citizen  always  knows 
the  interests  of  his  own  country  better  than  a  foreign- 
born  citizen  can,  unless  the  latter  has  come  there  in 
his  early  youth.  There  are,  of  course,  exceptions  ;  but 
no  man  should  ever  be  appointed  minister  abroad  who 
has  left  his  own  country  for  political  reasons.  We 
are  too  apt-to  think  that  all  countries  should  pattern 
themselves  after  our  model,  and  are  either  unable  or 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  127 

unwilling  to  take  note  of  their  prejudices.  But  what 
should  we  have  thought  if,  after  the  close  of  the  War 
of  the  Rebellion,  Mr.  Benjamin  had  been  sent  to 
Washington  as  the  English  minister  ?  It  is  doubtful 
whether  our  Government  would  have  received  him ; 
and  even  had  he  been  received,  he  would  scarcely 
have  been  treated  with  politeness.  We  should  never 
forget,  much  as  we  may  sympathize  with  a  political 
exile,  that  he  may  be  treated  in  the  same  way  should 
he  be  sent  back  as  minister  to  the  country  of  his  birth. 
It  is  not  so  much  a  question  as  to  what  is  considered 
proper  by  us,  as  to  what  is  agreeable  to  the  country 
where  the  minister  is  sent ;  for  he  is  not  sent  to  repre- 
sent us  in  the  sense  of  being  in  any  way  a  typical 
American,  but  in  order  to  transact  successfully  such 
business  as  we  may  have  to  do.  For  that  reason  there 
are  serious  objections  to  the  appointment  of  negroes. 
To  Liberia  it  does  not  matter  much ;  although  there 
is  not  the  slightest  need  of  a  mission  to  that  petty 
state.  But  the  government  of  Hayti,  although  com- 
posed generally  of  mulattoes  or  negroes,  prefers  a 
white  representative  from  other  countries.  Hayti 
wishes  to  be  considered  of  importance  in  the  world, 
and  thinks  that  we  are  treating  her  with  contempt  in 
sending  a  minister  of  her  own  race.  Other  foreign 
powers  who  have  relations  with  Hayti  send  white 
persons,  why,  therefore,  should  not  the  United  States 
do  so,  they  argue.  . 


128  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

There  is  but  one  profession  that  is  generally  agreed 
as  disqualifying  men  from  holding  these  offices  ;  that 
is  the  clerical  profession.  In  old  times  the  govern- 
ments of  various  countries  were  much  in  the  hands 
of  the  clergy.  Very  many  ministers  of  state  as  well 
as  ambassadors  were  prelates,  or  at  least  clergymen. 
Nowadays  this  is  not  so,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
nuncios  of  the  Pope,  who  is  a  spiritual  sovereign. 
Clerical  diplomatists  have  probably  not  been  sent 
from  any  country  except  the  United  States  since  the 
French  Revolution.  The  last  English  clergyman  ap- 
pointed to  diplomatic  office  was  Mr.  Robinson,  who 
after  holding  several  preferments  became  Bishop  of 
London.  His  career,  however,  was  a  peculiar  one. 
He  had  been  domestic  chaplain  to  the  British  min- 
ister at  Stockholm  at  a  time  when  domestic  chaplains 
were  considered  of  such  low  rank  that  they  generally 
married  the  lady's  maids.  At  one  time,  in  the  absence 
of  the  minister  and  of  any  secretary  of  legation,  he  was 
the  only  man  who  could  be  left  as  the  charge  d'affaires. 
He  displayed  much  ability  and  tact,  and  succeeded  in 
ingratiating  himself  with  King  Charles  XII.  to  such 
a  degree  that  he  was  finally  appointed  minister ;  and 
as  such  accompanied  the  king  on  several  campaigns. 
His  last  appearance  in  diplomatic  life  was  as  one  of 
plenipotentiaries  who  signed  the  treaty  of  Utrecht. 

With  the  exception  of  a  few  Catholic  countries  and 
England,  even  the  higher  clergy  do  not  generally  ap- 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 29 

pear  in  society ;  and  a  clerical  diplomatist  would  be 
an  anomaly.  It  might  be  that  under  special  circum- 
stances a  clerical  diplomatist  would  be  of  use  in  affect- 
ing public  opinion ;  and  such  was  the  case  at  the  out- 
break of  our  war,  when  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  of  Ohio, 
was  sent  to  England  in  order  to  conciliate  the  church 
sentiment  of  that  country ;  and  Archbishop  Hughes, 
of  New  York,  was  despatched  on  a  like  errand  to 
the  Catholics  of  England  and  France.  Neither  of 
them,  however,  had  any  credentials  or  diplomatic 
powers.  Similar  cases  might  occur  when  it  would  be 
proper  to  send  a  high  Catholic  clerical  dignitary  on  a 
special  mission  to  some  Catholic  country  where  the 
church  still  maintains  much  power.  But  it  cannot  be 
expected  that  to  send  a  Protestant  clergyman,  as 
minister  to  a  Catholic  country,  where  he  is  regarded 
as  a  heretic,  would  have  a  good  effect.  Apart  from 
the  disabilities  which  attend  him  simply  because  he  is 
a  clergyman,  he  has,  moreover,  the  great  temptations 
of  his  status — to  preach,  to  hold  prayer-meetings,  and 
to  appear  in  his  capacity  of  clergyman  in  a  way  dis- 
liked by  the  authorities  to  whom  he  is  accredited. 
So  also  at  times  women  have  been  given  secret  polit- 
ical missions,  but  they  have  not  yet  been  publicly  or 
usually  employed. 

A  diplomatic  official  is  in  no  way  a  political  one  in 
the  ordinary  sense.     The  politics  of  every  country  are 
governed  almost  entirely  by  internal  considerations. 
9 


1 30  AMERICAN  DIPL OMA  C V. 

That  is  especially  the  case  with  us.  We  ought  to 
consider  foreign  ministers  in  the  light  of  lawyers  en- 
trusted with  a  brief  to  uphold  all  the  interests  of  the 
country  apart  from  those  of  any  political  party,  and 
ready  to  receive  instructions  from  their  clients,  of 
whatever  political  opinion  or  religion  they  may  be. 
In  employing  a  lawyer,  no  one,  other  things  being 
equal,  would  think  of  inquiring  where  he  went  to 
church,  or  for  whom  he  had  voted ;  one  would  only 
ask  what  his  capacity  was  for  the  case  with  which  he 
was  to  be  intrusted,  and  how  he  was  likely  to  impress 
the  court  before  which  he  was  to  argue.  So  it  should 
be  with  governments.  Even  in  countries  where  the 
foreign  policy  makes  a  dividing  line  between  parties, 
it  has  been  found  advantageous  to  keep  in  office 
trained  and  experienced  diplomatic  officials,  without  re- 
gard to  their  personal  political  preferences.  They  are 
found  in  practice  to  serve  as  well,  and  generally  much 
better.  An  English  minister  will  carry  out  the  instruc- 
tions of  his  government  with  equal  vigor  whether 
he  belongs  to  the  party  in  office  or  not.  There  may 
be  exceptions  in  the  case  of  countries  which  waver 
between  two  or  three  different  forms  of  government. 
It  was  very  natural  that  France,  after  obtaining  a 
republican  government,  should  not  wish  to  be  repre- 
sented abroad  by  men  who  were  prominent  Impe- 
rialists, because  the  republic  was  desirous  of  concil- 
iating the  good  opinion  of  European  sovereigns,  and . 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  131 

wished  its  representatives  to  be  thoroughly  in  accord 
with  it.  But  in  our  own  case,  where  the  Government 
is  well  established,  and  where  the  questions  with  which 
a  minister  has  to  deal  are  diplomatic  and  not  dynastic 
or  governmental  ones,  it  should  make  no  difference 
whether  a  minister  abroad  is  a  Democrat  or  a  Repub- 
lican. If  he  be  fit  to  represent  us  under  the  rule  of 
one  party,  he  is  fit  to  do  so  under  the  rule  of  another. 
There  is  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things  why,  when 
a  new  party  or  a  new  administration  comes  into 
power,  the  ministers  appointed  by  the  preceding  one 
should  be  recalled.  They  represent  the  Government 
and  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  not  the  Presi- 
dent, nor  the  interests  of  any  political  party. 

Even  in  ordinary  business  a  man  selects  as  his 
agent,  especially  in  delicate  matters,  a  man  of  tact, 
knowledge,  and  discretion,  who  will  be  well  received 
by  those  with  whom  he  has  to  deal.  How  much 
more  should  this  be  the  case  in  public  affairs !  The 
only  proper  way  of  regarding  our  diplomatic  posts  is 
that  so  tersely  expressed  by  President  Cleveland  : 
"  Public  office  is  a  public  trust." 

In  speaking  of  the  true  purposes  of  diplomacy,  F. 
von  Martens  well  says : 

**  As  organs  of  international  administration  in  the  sphere  of 
the  political  interests  of^States,  diplomatists  can  only  reach  the 
high  aim  set  before  them  when  they  learn  to  recognize  and 
understand   thoroughly  the  cultural  and  political  aspirations 


132  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

of  the  people  whom  they  serve  and  of  the  people  where  they 
exercise  their  functions.  Insight  into  these  aspirations  and  a 
just  appreciation  of  them  can  alone  secure  the  peaceful  de- 
velopment of  the  external  relations  of  States,  and  can  alone 
guarantee  the  success  and  enduring  results  of  diplomatic 
work."  * 

Our  diplomatic  are  appointed  in  the  same  way  as 
our  consular  officials ;  that  is,  by  the  President,  with 
the  consent  of  the  Senate.  After  he  has  accepted  the 
appointment,  and  has  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance,  a 
minister  is  given  by  law  not  more  than  thirty  days, 
with  salary,  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  his  instruc- 
tions. These  instructions  are,  for  the  most  part,  con- 
tained in  a  pamphlet  printed  by  the  State  Depart- 
ment, containing  only  the  general  rules  which  regulate 
the  conduct  of  a  minister,  and  especially  his  relations 
to  the  State  Department  and  the  Treasury.  This  pam- 
phlet is  considered  secret,  though  it  has  nothing  in  it 
that  could  not  be  public  to  all  the  world ;  and  indeed 
so  secret  have  these  personal  instructions  been  thought 
at  various  times  by  the  State  Department,  that  when 
a  new  edition  is  published  the  old  copies  are  destroyed, 
and  not  even  the  Department  has  a  complete  series 
of  them  from  the  beginning.  In  case  important  and 
intricate  business  should  await  a  minister  at  his  post 
he  would  be  expected  to  familiarize  himself  with  the 
history  and  affairs  of  the  legation  before  leaving  this 

*  Volkerrecht,  ii.,  p.  65. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 33 

country,  and  might  possibly  receive  definite  instruc- 
tions in  writing.  In  the  early  times  of  the  Govern- 
ment such  written  instructions  for  specific  cases  were 
the  rule ;  but  they  are  now  rarely  given.  The  min- 
ister is  furnished  with  credentials — that  is,  a  letter 
from  the  President  to  the  sovereign  or  head  of  the 
government  to  which  he  is  going,  to  the  effect  that 
the  President,  reposing  perfect  confidence  in  the  zeal, 

ability,  and  discretion  of  A B ,  has  appointed 

him  as  minister  of  the  United  States  at  such  a  place ; 
and  that  he  hopes  all  faith  and  credit  will  be  given  him 
when  he  speaks  for  the  United  States ;  and  especially 
when  he  reiterates  the  assurance  of  respect,  sympathy, 
etc.  These  letters  are  always  addressed,  when  coming 
from  a  republic,  to  "  Great  and  Good  Friend,"  and 
are  signed  "  Your  good  friend,"  followed  by  the  Presi- 
dent's name  and  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  of 
State. 

No  extra  compensation  is  allowed  to  a  minister  for 
his  journey,  but  he  is  allowed  to  receive  his  salary 
during  his  transit  to  his  post  for  a  certain  number  of 
days,  fixed  by  the  State  Department,  varying  from 
seventy  days  for  Pekin  to  fifteen  days  for  Hayti. 

The  general  rule  in  other  countries  is,  that  before 
the  actual  appointment  of  a  minister,  the  government 
to  which  it  is  proposed  to  send  him  should  be  pri- 
vately asked  whether  it  is  willing  to  accept  him. 
There  are  often  personal  or  political  reasons  why  a 


134  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

minister  is  not  acceptable  in  a  particular  country, 
while  he  might  be  perfectly  acceptable  in  many 
others.  This  gives  the  foreign  government  the  op- 
portunity of  refusing  him  without  publicity,  and 
therefore  does  not  work  harm  to  the  minister  himself. 
Such  refusals  are  not  uncommon.  Recently,  for  ex- 
ample, the  German  government,  it  is  stated  on  good 
authority,  refused  three  English  ambassadors  who 
were  proposed  before  the  present  one  was  accepted. 
Had  they  been  publicly  rejected  it  might,  and  prob- 
ably would,  have  interfered  with  their  usefulness  else- 
where. Among  other  well-known  examples,  the  King 
of  Sardinia,  in  1820,  refused  to  receive  Baron  de  Mar- 
tens as  Prussian  Minister,  alleging  that  his  wife  was 
the  daughter  of  a  French  regicide;  and,  in  1847,  the 
King  of  Hanover  refused  to  receive  as  Prussian  Min- 
ister, Count  von  Westphalen,  because  he  was  a  Cath- 
olic. Even  with  our  own  ministers,  one  was  refused 
at  Vienna  because  he  had  publicly  sympathized  with 
the  Hungarians  before  they  had  made  a  success- 
ful revolution.  Another  was  refused  by  Italy  because, 
in  arguing  for  the  maintenance  of  the  temporal  power 
of  the  Pope,  he  had  said  disagreeable  things  against 
the  Italian  government.  If  the  acceptance  of  these 
ministers  had  been  privately  asked  beforehand,  the 
refusal  would  have  been  much  easier  and  less  disagree- 
able to  the  gentlemen  in  question.  There  is  probably 
an  historical  reason  why  our  Government  did  not  at 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIA-LS.  1 35 

first  ask  for  the  acceptance  of  its  representatives.  The 
first  ministers  whom  we  sent  abroad  were  sent  while 
we  were  still  considered  as  rebels,  and  had  not  actually- 
gained  our  independence.  After  that,  before  the  days 
of  steam  and  electricity,  the  communications  between 
America  and  Europe,  owing  to  wars,  were  so  slow  and 
uncertain  that  it  might  have  required  six  months  to 
obtain  an  answer.  Foreign  governments,  in  treating 
with  us,  have  naturally  followed  our  system.  If  we 
do  not  ask  for  the  acceptance  of  a  minister,  neither 
do  they.  But  in  earlier  times  they  always  conformed 
to  their  own  usage,  so  far  as  to  inform  our  ministers 
abroad  of  the  intention  of  appointing  certain  persons 
as  ministers  here,  and  expressing  the  hope  that  they 
would  be  agreeable  to  us.  Our  government  has  more 
than  once  done  the  same  thing.  It  is  stated  that  a 
formal  application  was  made  to  the  French  govern- 
ment in  1869  to  receive  Mr.  Washburne  as  our  Minis- 
ter at  Paris  ;  but  there  seem  to  be  no  proofs  of  this  on 
file  in  the  State  Department.  It  is,  however,  certain 
that  in  1871  or  1872,  the  French  government  officially 
asked  for  the  acceptance,  as  Minister  in  Washington, 
of  Mr.  Jules  Ferry,  who  was  agreed  to  by  Mr.  Fish. 
His  nomination  being  changed,  the  name  of  the  Mar- 
quis de  Noailles  was  officially  proposed  and  accepted 
in  the  same  way.  Now  that  rapid  communication 
has  been  established  between  America  and  Europe, 
the   reasons  once  valid  have  ceased,  and  there  is  no 


136  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

excuse  for  our  not  conforming  to  the  general  usage 
in  this  respect,  at  least  so  far  as  to  communicate  the 
nomination  confidentially,  a  sufficient  time  before  its 
promulgation  to  allow  of  objection.* 

It  may  be  mentioned  here  that  our  government  has 
never  been  slow  to  use  its  right  of  asking  for  the  re- 
call of,  or  of  sending  away  a  foreign  minister  who  be- 
comes in  any  way  obnoxious.  The  recall  of  Mr. 
Genet,  the  French  Minister,  was  asked  in  1 793  ;  that 
of  Mr.  Jackson,  the  British  Minister,  in  1809;  that 
of  Mr.  Poussin,  the  French  Minister,  in  1849;  Mr. 
Crampton,  the  British  Minister,  was  given  his  pass- 
ports in  1856;  and  intercourse  ceased  with  Mr.  Cata- 
cazy,  the  Russian  Minister  in  187 1.  There  are,  per- 
haps, other  cases,  where  a  mere  hint  was  sufificient  to 
effect  the  minister's  recall,  without  publicity. 

On  arriving  at  his  post  the  minister's  first  duty  is 
to  inform  the  Minister  for  Foreign  AfTairs  of  his  ar- 
rival, and  of  his  character,  and  to  request  an  interview 
for  the  purpose  of  asking  an  audience  for  the  purpose 
of  presenting  his  credentials  to  the  head  of  the  state. 
He  is  usually  received  at  once  by  the  minister,  and 
by  the  sovereign  as  soon  as  an  interview  can  be  ar- 
ranged, though  in  case  of  absence  or  illness  there  may 
be  a  delay  of  weeks,  if  not  of  months.  Etiquette, 
however,  demands   that  the  audience  for  presenting 

*  On  this  subject  see  Cours  de  Droit  Diplomatique^  by  P. 
Pradier-Fodere,  I.,  pp.  347-354. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 37 

credentials  should  take  place  as  early  as  possible. 
These  audiences  are  either  public  or  private.  In 
the  first  the  minister  is  accompanied  by  the  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  generally  followed  by  his  own 
secretaries,  and  goes  to  the  palace  in  more  or  less 
state,  according  to  the  customs  of  the  place ;  for  these 
vary  greatly  in  different  capitals.  For  an  ambassador 
a  state  carriage  is  always  sent.  This  is  not  always 
the  case  with  the  minister  in  a  capital  where  ambas- 
sadors also  reside,  it  being  considered  desirable  to 
draw  distinctions  of  ceremony  between  the  two.  In 
small  countries,  where  there  are  no  ambassadors,  a 
state  carriage  is  usually  sent  for  the  minister,  in  some 
cases  accompanied  by  an  escort.  At  a  formal  audi- 
ence all  parties  are  standing :  the  minister  enters,  is 
introduced  to  the  sovereign  by  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  addresses  a  few  words  to  him  stating  his  char- 
acter, and  presents  his  letters  of  credence.  These 
the  sovereign  takes,  sometimes  goes  through  the  for- 
mality of  reading  them,  and  replies  briefly  to  the 
minister.  After  the  formal  part  of  the  audience  is 
over,  there  is  generally  a  friendly  conversation  of  a 
few  moments,  and  the  ceremony  ends  in  much  the 
same  way  as  it  began.  In  some  countries  it  is  ex- 
pected that  a  formal  speech  will  be  made  by  the  min- 
ister to  the  sovereign,  and  a  formal  reply  made.  In 
such  cases  the  speech  is  written  out  in  advance  and 
given  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  who  returns 


138  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

a  copy  of  the  reply  before  the  audience  takes  place. 
This  is  in  order  to  prevent  embarrassment,  as  well 
as  to  see  that  nothing  unpleasant  be  said.  In  some 
countries,  as  in  Russia,  a  minister  is  nearly  always  re- 
ceived in  private  audience.  He  goes  to  the  palace 
alone,  is  met  by  the  Grand  Master  of  Ceremonies, 
conducted  to  the  Emperor,  introduced  into  his  room, 
and  is  left  alone  with  him.  After  a  word  or  two  the 
Emperor  requests  the  minister  to  be  seated  ;  and  the 
conversation  is  informal. 

Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  remarked  in  1809,  after 
one  of  these  ceremonies  :  "  The  formalities  of  these 
court  presentations  are  so  trifling  and  insignificant  in 
themselves,  and  so  important  in  the  eyes  of  princes 
and  courtiers,  that  they  are  much  more  embarrassing 
to  an  American,  than  business  of  real  importance.  It 
is  not  safe  or  prudent  to  despise  them,  nor  practica- 
ble for  a  person  of  rational  understanding  to  value 
them." 

After  the  presentation  of  his  letters  of  t:redence  it 
is  then  the  duty  of  a  minister,  if  accredited  to  a  sov- 
ereign, to  ask  for  presentation  to  the  Queen  or  Em- 
press and  to  the  Princes  and  Princesses.  Such  pres- 
entations, where  the  royal  family  is  numerous,  may 
be  scattered  over  a  long  series  of  months.  Immedi- 
ately after  presenting  his  credentials  the  minister 
makes  ceremonial  calls  on  the  various  ministers  of 
the  country  to  which  he  is  accredited,  and  to  other 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  1 39 

high  officials,  of  whom  a  list  is  generally  given  him 
by  the  Master  of  Ceremonies.  He  also  makes  formal 
visits  to  all  of  his  colleagues,  when  ffe  is  expected  not 
simply  to  leave  a  card,  but  to  go  in  if  they  are  at 
home.  It  is  generally  the  rule  that  a  minister  or  an 
envoy  should  not  call  for  the  first  time  upon  any  am- 
bassador unless  he  has  first  written  a  note  asking  when 
he  can  be  received.  We  mention  this  formal  part  of 
the  minister's  business  because  slight  breaches  of  eti- 
quette at  the  beginning  are  often  ascribed  to  ignorance 
and  create  anlmlavorable  impression.  Etiquette  dif- 
fers very  greatly  in  the  different  capitals  of  Europe 
in  small  particulars;  and  it  would  be  unsafe  for  a 
diplomat  of  even  great  experience  to  appear  at  a  new 
court  without  informing  himself  exactly  of  the  usages 
of  the  place.  In  case  the  secretary  of  legation  be  not 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  such  usages,  they  can 
always  be  learned  from  experienced  colleagues,  gen- 
erally from  the  one  who  has  been  there  the  longest, 
and  therefore  the  dean  of  the  diplomatic  body,  who 
is  always  ready  to  welcome  a  new-comer. 

The  diplomatic  officials  of  nearly  all  countries  wear 
a  uniform,  generally  consisting  of  a  coat  more  or  less 
richly  embroidered  with  gold,  a  cocked  hat,  and 
sword.  By  a  resolution  of  Congress  passed  in  1867 
the  diplomatic  officials  of  the  United  States  are  for- 
bidden to  wear  "  any  uniform  or  official  costume  not 
previously  authorized   by  Congress;"  and  although 


140  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

the  wording  of  the  resolution  is  ambiguous,  and  might 
be  held  to  prevent  a  minister's  wearing  any  clothes  at 
all,  he  appears  in  ordinary  evening  dress,  unless,  hav- 
ing been  a  military  or  naval  officer,  he  wear  the  uni- 
form prescribed  for  his  rank.  The  history  of  this 
resolution  is  somewhat  curious.  At  the  beginning 
of  our  Government  the  costume  worn  by  men  in 
society  admitted  of  much  greater  variety  than  at 
present  in  color,  cut,  and  ornament ;  and  therefore 
there  was  no  special  distinction,  except  in  point  of 
richness,  between  dress  worn  at  court  and  on  ordinary 
occasions.  When  our  mission  went  to  Ghent  in  1814, 
for  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  a 
change  had  come  over  European  usages ;  and  it  was 
found  to  be  advisable  to  adopt  some  uniform  to  mark 
the  rank  of  the  members  of  the  mission.  They  agreed 
to  wear  a  blue  coat,  slightly  embroidered  with  gold, 
with  white  breeches,  white  silk  stockings,  and  gold 
knee-buckles  and  shoe-buckles,  a  sword,  and  a  small 
cocked  hat  with  a  black  cockade.  For  grand  occa- 
sions this  uniform  was  made  somewhat  richer.  In 
1823  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  then  Secretary  of 
State,  wrote  to  our  ministers  abroad  recommending 
the  use  of  the  uniform  worn  by  the  mission  of 
Ghent,  sending  a  formal  description  of  it  as  well  as 
an  engraved  plate.  During  the  administration  of 
General  Jackson,  in  1829,  this  uniform  was  changed. 
It  was  made  simpler  and  cheaper,  consisting  of  a  black 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  141 

coat  with  a  gold  star  on  each  side  of  the  collar,  black 
or  white  knee-breeches,  a  three  cornered  chapeau-bras 
with  a  black  cockade  and  a  gold  eagle,  and  a  steel- 
mounted  sword  with  a  white  scabbard.  This  dress 
was  not  prescribed  by  the  President,  but  was  sug- 
gested as  an  appropriate  and  convenient  uniform 
dress  for  the  diplomatic  agents  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  said  that  not  all  ministers  conformed  to  this 
recommendation,  and  that  some  of  them  appeared  in 
more  brilliant  uniforms  suited  to  their  respective 
tastes.  Son\e  suggestions  were  made  on  this  subject 
to  the  Department  of  State ;  and  Mr.  Marcy,  on 
June  I,  1853,  issued  a  circular  withdrawing  all  previ- 
ous instructions,  and  recommending  the  appearance  cit 
court  of  our  ministers  in  the  simple  dress  of  an  Ameri- 
can citizen,  "  whenever  it  could  be  done  without 
detriment  to  the  public  interest."  Mr.  Marcy  cited 
the  example  of  Dr.  Franklin,  who  had  appeared  at 
the  French  court  in  very  simple  dress ;  but  it  is  now 
well  known  that  this  was  not  owing  to  any  love  of 
simplicity  on  the  part  of  Franklin,  but  merely  that  on 
a  certain  occasion  his  presence  was  so  much  desired  at 
court,  when  he  had  no  clothes  in  which  he  considered 
it  fit  to  appear,  that  he  was  requested  to  come  in  what- 
ever he  happened  to  be  wearing  at  the  moment.  In 
compliance  with  these  instructions,  several  of  our 
ministers  attempted  to  go  to  court  in  plain  evening 
dress.     To  Mr.  Belmont,  at  The  Hague,  no  objection 


142  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

was  made,  although  it  was  evidently  preferred  that 
he  should  comply  with  the  usages  of  the  place. 
Mr.  Mason  presented  his  credentials  to  the  Emperor 
Napoleon  in  civil  dress,  but  subsequently  adopted  a 
simple  uniform,  which  he  always  wore  on  ceremonial 
occasions.  At  Stockholm,  while  the  King  expressed 
his  perfect  willingness  personally  to  receive  Mr. 
Schroeder  in  plain  dress,  he  said,  "  The  etiquette  of 
my  house  is  subject  to  regulations  which  cannot  be 
waived  for  one  in  preference  to  others.  In  audience 
for  business  I  will  receive  him  in  any  dress  his  Govern- 
ment may  prescribe ;  but  in  the  society  of  my  family 
and  on  occasions  of  court  no  one  can  be  received  but 
in  court  dress,  in  conformity  with  the  established  cus- 
toms." Mr.  Vroom,  at  Berlin,  was  told  that  "  his 
Majesty  would  not  consider  an  appearance  before  him 
without  costume  as  respectful."  Mr.  Buchanan  was 
excluded  from  the  diplomatic  tribune  at  the  opening 
of  Parliament,  because  he  refused  to  wear  court  dress; 
and  when  subsequently  he  insisted  on  wearing  civilian 
dress.  Sir  Edward  Cust  told  him  V  that  he  hoped  he 
would  not  appear  at  court  in  the  dress  he  wore  upon 
the  street,  but  would  wear  something  indicating  his 
official  position."  He  therefore  appeared  at  court  in 
ordinary  evening  dress,  with  a  plain  black  sword  and 
a  cocked  hat.  Mr.  H.  S.  Sanford,  who  had  been  act- 
ing as  charge  d'affaires  at  Paris,  until  the  arrival  of 
Mr.  Mason,  carried  out  Mr.  Marcy's  instructions  lit- 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  143 

erally,  and  adopted  an  evening  dress.  When  Mr. 
Mason,  as  has  just  been  mentioned,  returned  to  the 
use  of  uniform,  Mr.  Sanford  complained  of  this  to 
the  Department  of  State,  and  offered  his  resignation. 
His  conduct  in  the  matter  was  approved  by  Mr. 
Marcy,  but  his  resignation  was  accepted.  Six  years 
afterward,  in  January,  i860,  when  Mr.  Faulkner  was 
about  proceeding  to  Paris,  Mr.  Sanford  wrote  to  Gen- 
eral Cass  referring  to  the  previous  correspondence, 
ridiculing  Mr.  Mason's  course,  and  asking  that  Mr. 
Faulkner  should  be  instructed  to  wear  civilian  dress. 
Mr.  Sanford  in  this  letter  confounded  two  things, 
court  dress  and  diplomatic  uniform  ;  for  even  in  coun- 
tries where  court  dress  is  required,  there  is  a  diplo- 
matic uniform  different  from  that  worn  by  other  offi- 
cials; and  the  example  of  the  Turkish  ambassador, 
brought  up  by  him,  was  by  no  means  to  the  point. 
Turkish  diplomats  always  wear  a  diplomatic  uniform, 
and  by  no  means  the  ordinary  Turkish  dress,  which 
can  be  worn  in  the  presence  of  the  Sultan.  In  com- 
pliance with  a  resolution  of  the  Senate,  the  papers  on 
this  subject  were  printed  shortly  afterward."^  No 
further  action  was  taken  until  March,  1867,  when  by 
the  joint  efforts  of  Senator  Sumner  and  General 
Banks,  the  resolution  in  question  was  forced  through 
Congress.     The    debate   was   remarkable   chiefly   for 

*  Senate   Ex.    Poc,  No.    31,   36th   Congress,  ist  Session, 
April  2,  i860. 


144  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

those  crude  expressions  of  Chauvinism  in  which  dem- 
agogues delight  to  indulge,  except  for  the  very  sensi- 
ble and  practical  remarks  of  General  Schenck,  who, 
in  conjunction  with  Mr.  Pruyn,  attempted  to  amend 
the  resolution  so  as  to  give  the  State  Department 
power  to  fix  the  exact  dress  to  be  worn.  The  resolu- 
tion, in  point  of  fact,  does  not  accomplish  what  was 
intended  by  it — to  prevent  the  wearing  of  court  dress 
in  London,  almost  the  only  place  where  it  is  worn  ;  for 
court  dress  is  neither  a  "  uniform  "  nor  an  "  official 
costume." 

The  objection  to  plain  evening  dress  is  not  its  sim- 
plicity, but  because  being  the  only  persons,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  at  any  court  ceremony  in  evening  dress,  ex- 
cept the  waiters  and  servants,  our  representatives  are 
unpleasantly  conspicuous.  They  are  much  more 
comfortable  in  a  hot  and  crowded  room  than  if  they 
wore  a  heavy,  closely  buttoned  uniform  ;  but  they  are 
the  subject  of  remark,  not  so  much  on  the  part  of 
their  colleagues,  who  profess  to  envy  theqj  their  ease, 
but  from  other  persons  unaccustomed  with  our  usages  ; 
so  that  when  at  court  they  generally  feel  in  an  awk- 
ward and  false  position,  much  as  a  private  gentle- 
man would,  who  by  some  accident  found  himself  at  a 
dinner  or  evening  party  in  a  morning  .dress.  It  is 
said  that  the  gentleman  who  is  chiefly  responsible  for 
this  rule  experienced  himself  the  discomfort  of  it ; 
and  that,  although  he  wore  civilian  dress  on  his  first 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 45 

appearance  as  minister  at  Brussels,  he  subsequently- 
obtained  a  commission  as  major-general  of  militia 
in  Minnesota,  which  allowed  him  to  appear  in  uni- 
form. All  that  is  desirable  is  some  plain  and  incon- 
spicuous mark  of  the  official  character.  The  blue 
dress-coat  with  brass  buttons,  formerly  in  vogue,  and 
so  well  known  to  iis  from  Daniel  Webster,  would  be 
amply  sufficient. 

The  next  duty  of  a  minister,  after  he  has  complied 
with  the  formalities  of  his  reception,  is,  of  course,  to 
acquaint  himself  with  the  affairs  of  his  legation ;  to 
learn  their  actual  situation,  and  to  be  ready  to  pro- 
ceed to  business.  He  should  then  begin  to  inform 
himself  about  the  country  in  which  he  is  to  live ;  its 
history,  laws,  usages,  manners,  and  customs;  to  make 
acquaintances  not  only  among  officials,  but  even 
among  private  persons  ;  and  to  endeavor,  as  far  as  is  in 
his  power,  to  become  a  component  part  of  the  society 
of  the  place.  As  to  political  personages,  he  should,  so 
far  as  the  feeling  and  prejudices  of  persons  in  power 
allow,  become  acquainted  also  with  statesmen  who 
are  out  of  office,  and  with  members  of  the  opposition. 
He  should  not,  however,  fall  into  the  other  extreme, 
and  cultivate  solely  the  opposition.  There  are  capi- 
tals, and  Paris  and  Bucarest  might  be  mentioned  as 
two  extremes,  where  the  members  of  the  government 
are  not  generally  people  in  the  highest  society ;  and 
it  is  a  great  mistake,  although  ministers  sometimes  fall 

lO 


146  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

into  it,  to  cultivate  the  best  society  of  the  place,  use- 
ful as  that  may  be,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  political 
leaders ;  and  to  espouse  the  prejudices  and  quarrels  of 
the  opposition  against  the  government. 

One  of  the  great  duties  of  a  minister  is  hospitality ; 
and  this  is  not  a  question  of  display ;  but  for  a  minis- 
ter to  be  useful  he  must  make  acquaintance  with  the 
leading  persons  of  the  country,  receive  them  at  his 
house,  be  on  good  terms  with  them,  and  prepare  him- 
self for  the  time  when  he  has  some  important  end  to 
gain.  Much  more  is  done  by  private  conversations, 
amiable  talks  over  a  dinner-table,  or  after,  than  can  be 
done  by  official  despatches.  Where  very  great  princi- 
ples are  at  stake,  it  is  necessary  to  write  formal  notes 
and  to  put  the  whole  negotiations  into  permanent 
form  ;  but  for  all  the  ordinary  incidents  arising  be- 
tween two  countries,  a  few  frank  words  between  peo- 
ple who  know,  appreciate,  and  understand  each  other, 
are  worth  far  more  than  formal  documents.  A  good 
diplomatist  will  always  seek  to  avoid  issues,  by  ar- 
ranging a  satisfactory  settlement  without  a  formal 
discussion.  For  such  informal  proceedings  mutual 
confidence,  and  secrecy  are  absolutely  necessary.  A 
written  despatch  must  be  replied  to,  and,  if  expressed 
in  anything  but  the  most  suave  language,  is  apt  to 
call  out  a  reply.  Each  side  feels  it  a  duty  to  main- 
tain his  own  case.  Take  an  example  :  A  ship-captain 
arriving  at  a  port  of   Spain,  having  endeavored  to 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  14/ 

conform  to  all  the  regulations,  and  supposing  that  he 
was  correct  in  his  action,  was  fined,  for  some  supposed 
infraction  of  the  customs  rules,  a  sum  sufficient  to 
confiscate  his  vessel  and  to  ruin  him.  The  whole 
proceeding  was  illegal  on  the  part  of  the  Spanish 
authorities,  and  it  required  only  a  few  words  from 
the  Charge  d'Affaires,  in  a  conversation  with  the 
Minister  of  Finance,  to  arrange  the  matter  with- 
out publicity  and  without  a  word  in  writing.  If  the 
official  formalities  had  been  observed,  and  a  note 
had  been  written  to  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
which  would  then  have  been  referred  to  the  Minister 
of  Finance,  and  then  to  the  officials  of  the  customs 
department,  the  afifair  would  have  lasted  for  months, 
and  very  possibly  the  Spanish  officials  would  have 
discovered  some  technical  means  for  justifying  their 
conduct.  Take  a  contrary  case  :  One  of  our  recent 
ministers  was  unsuccessful  and  unhappy  in  his  mission 
at  Berlin.  It  may  be  that  in  no  case  would  the  Ger- 
man government  have  entirely  met  the  wishes  of  the 
United  States.  But  the  minister,  ignorant  of  diplo- 
matic usage,  had  not  felt  the  necessity  of  forming  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  German  statesmen,  and 
when  he  received  an  instruction  from  our  Government, 
considered  that  he  had  done  all  that  was  necessary 
when  he  had  put  that  in  the  form  of  a  note  to  the  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  had  sent  it  by  his  messen- 
ger.   In  the  case  of  the  Lasker  resolution,  a  few  words 


148  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

would  have  removed  all  difficulties,  have  prevented 
two  governments  from  coming  almost  to  the  verge  of 
hostilities,  and  have  kept  our  relations  with  Germany 
in  that  friendly  state  where  they  had  always  before 
been.  There  is  an  interesting  instance  of  this  kind 
much  earlier  in  our  history.  The  relations  of  the 
minister,  General  Armstrong,  to  the  French  Govern- 
ment, were  in  1810  very  cool,  and  hints  were  given  to 
some  of  our  other  ministers  abroad,  with  the  hope 
that  they  would  be  repeated  and  he  would  be  re- 
called, as  indeed  he  eventually  was.  "  C'est  d'abord 
un  tres-galant  homme,"  said  the  ambassador :  "  but 
he  never  shows  himself,  and  upon  every  little  occa- 
sion, when  by  a  verbal  explanation  with  the  minister 
he  might  obtain  anything,  he  presents  peevish  notes." 
"  They  did  not  impeach  his  integrity,  but  he  was 
morose,  and  captious  and  petulant."  ^ 

A  minister  should  also  be  hospitable  to  his  own 
countrymen.  It  is  often  said  that  no  American  min- 
ister is  bound  by  his  instructions  or  by  the  laws  to  be 
hospitable  to  travelling  or  resident  Americans;  but 
usage  and  even  policy  require  this.  It  is  much  better 
for  the  minister  personally  that  he  should  conciliate 
the  good-will  of  travelling  Americans,  no  matter  what 
rank  in  society  they  may  hold  ;  and  it  is  also  better 
among  the  people  to  whom  he  is  sent,  that  he  is 
known  to  treat  his  own  countrymen  well,  and  not  to 
•Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  ii.,  p.  151. 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS,  1 49 

be  ashamed  of  them.  If,  therefore,  a  minister  have 
sufficient  private  means,  for  his  salary  would  never 
be  enough  to  keep  an  open  house,  he  will  find  it  to 
the  advantage  not  only  of  the  Government  but  of 
himself  in  every  way.  Where  attempts  are  made  to 
do  this,  they  should  not  be  by  halves.  I  have  known 
a  legation  in  a  European  capital  where  the  minister's 
wife  received  the  calls  of  Americans  on  one  day,  and 
those  of  diplomats  and  the  society  of  the  place  on 
another  day ;  and  while  many  dinners  were  given, 
care  was  taken  not  to  mix  the  society.  The  result 
was  that  no  one  cared  for  the  hospitality.  The 
Americans  felt  vexed  at  their  being  not  thought  good 
enough  to  meet  the  society  of  the  place ;  and  the 
diplomats  and  young  men  of  society  often  regretted 
that  they  were  deprived  of  meeting  pretty  and  charm- 
ing American  girls.  The  minister  defended  this 
course  on  the  ground  that  the  society  of  the  capital 
was  exclusive,  and  did  not  care  to  meet  Americans. 
Whatever  they  might  be  in  their  own  houses,  they 
certainly  did  expect  to  see  Americans  at  the  Ameri- 
can legation ;  and  never,  in  an  experience  of  many 
countries,  have  I  witnessed  this  separation  of  the 
sheep  and  goats  in  any  but  an  American  legation. 

If  great  stress  seems  to  be  laid  upon  the  social 
duties  of  a  minister,  it  is  because  the  experience  of  all 
countries  has  shown  the  very  great  value  of  social  in- 
tercourse for  the  political  ends  which  a  minister  has 


I50  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

in  view.     Lord  Palmerston  expressed  this  very  well 
when  he  was  examined  by  a  committee  of  the  House 
•  of  Commons  with  regard  to  diplomatic  salaries.     He 
said : 

"  Now  in  order  to  preserve  good  relations  with  a  country,  it 
is  not  sufficient  simply  to  have  a  person  Uving  in  town  as 
cheaply  as  he  can  afford  to  exist,  because  the  social  position 
of  your  representative  is  a  very  important  element  in  his  power 
to  be  useful.  In  regard  to  his  intercourse  with  the  ministers 
of  the  country,  great  facilities  and  great  means  of  good  under- 
standing are  afforded  by  easy  social  intercourse,  which  can 
only  possibly  be  obtained  by  his  being  able  to  receive  them, 
as  well  as  also  being  received  by  them.  Again,  it  is  of  great 
importance  that  your  ambassador  should  be  in  habits  of  social 
intercourse  with  the  public  men  not  in  office  ;  that  he  should 
have  the  means  of  receiving  them,  becoming  acquainted  with 
their  views,  and  explaining  to  them  the  views  and  policy  of  his 
own  country.  Therefore  I  think  that  it  is  of  great  importance 
to  this  country  that  your  representative  should  be  in  such  an 
easy  position  with  regard  to  money  affairs  as  may  enable  him 
to  receive  hospitably  persons  of  all  kinds,  and  I  may  say  also 
of  different  nations."  * 

Mr.  Monroe,  when  Secretary  of  State,  had  used 
much  the  same  language  thirty  years  before. 

"  Is  it  necessary  that  the  United  States  should  be  represented 
with  foreign  Powers  ?  That  has  long  ceased  to  be  a  question. 
Shall  they  maintain  a  proper  station  there,  not  assuming,  but 
dignified,  such  as  the  general  expectation  and  common  opinion 
of  mankind  have  given  them  ?  That  has  never  been  a  question. 
The  character  of  the  country,  if  not  its  rank,  is  in  some  degree 

*  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No,  93,  32d  Congress,  ist  Session,  p.  8.* 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  151 

affected  by  that  which .  is  maintained  by  its  ministers  abroad. 
Their  utility  in  all  the  great  objects  of  their  mission  is  essentially 
dependent  on  it.  A  minister  can  be  useful  only  by  filling  his 
place  with  credit  in  the  diplomatic  corps,  and  in  the  corre- 
sponding circle  of  society  in  the  country  in  which  he  resides, 
which  is  the  best  in  every  country.  By  taking  the  proper 
ground,  if  he  possesses  the  necessary  qualifications  and  is  fur- 
nished with  adequate  means,  he  will  become  acquainted  with 
all  that  passes,  and  from  the  highest  and  most  authentic  sources. 
Inspiring  confidence  by  reposing  it  in  those  who  deserve  it,  and 
by  an  honorable  deportment  in  other  respects,  he  will  have 
much  influence,  especially  in  what  relate  to  his  own  country. 
Deprive  him  of  the  necessary  means  to  sustain  this  ground, 
separate  him  from  the  circle  to  which  he  belongs,  and  he  is 
reduced  to  a  cipher.  He  may  collect  intelligence  from  adven- 
turers and  spies,  but  it  will  be  of  comparatively  little  value  ; 
and  in  other  respects  he  had  as  well  not  be  there."  * 

An  investigation  of  the  salaries  needful  to  diplo- 
matic officers  was  made  by  our  own  Government  in 
185 1.  Among  the  replies  from  our  ministers  abroad 
was  one  from  Mr.  Schroeder,  then  charge  d'affaires  at 
Stockholm,  who  said  : 

"  In  the  late  examinations  ordered  by  the  British  House  of 
Commons  concerning  diplomatic  salaries,  it  was  stoutly,  al- 
though somewhat  ludicrously,  urged  by  several  of  the  witnesses 
who  had  served  as  ministers  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  that 
the  giving  of  dinners  was  really  an  important  branch  of  their 
duties.  The  diplomatic  corps  at  this  place  would  certainly 
have  given  similar  testimony  ;  and  viewing  the  matter  seriously, 

"*  James  Monroe  to  William  Lowndes,  Chairman  of  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means,  April  5,  1816,  Annals  of  Congress,  14th  Congress,  ist 
Session,  p.  1735. 


1 52  AMERICAN  DIPL OMA  C  V. 

my  own  observation  and  experience  are,  that  no  address  or 
management  could  perhaps  so  readily  obtain  information,  pro- 
cure a  rare  copy  of  statistical  record,  or  perhaps  achieve  other 
and  more  diplomatic  ends,  as  that  part  of  the  diplomatic  duty 
to  the  importance  of  which  the  English  witnesses  testified. 
Consideration  and  a  certain  kind  of  influence  are  measured  by 
appearances  ;  and  although,  generally  speaking,  it  is  a  sort  of 
importance  little  desirable  for  an  American,  a  certain  degree 
of  it  must  in  this  manner  be  purchased,  in  order  to  have  occa- 
sional access  to  what  in  many  cases  may  be  indispensable — the 
ear  of  the  king.  In  corroboration  of  this  I  take  the  liberty  to 
say  that  I  believe  a  conversation  which  I  had  an  opportunity  to 
hold  with  his  Majesty  upon  the  subject  of  Swedish  taxes  and 
American  commerce,  has  had,  and  will  have,  more  effect  in  the 
amelioration  of  the  Swedish  tariff  than  all  the  arguments  which 
I  had  employed  during  the  preceding  six  months  at  the  Foreign 
Office,  and  with  other  members  of  the  government  and  of  the 
diet."* 

Of  course  there  are  ways  and  ways  of  entertaining, 
and  one  minister  of  social  experience  and  tact  can  ac- 
complish far  more  by  a  small  expenditure  than  an- 
other could  obtain  by  lavishness.  Balls  and  recep- 
tions are  useful,  because  they  ingratiate  the  minister 
with  the  local  society  ;  and  they  are  as  much  expected 
from  a  foreign  minister  in  Washington  as  from  a  for- 
eign minister  abroad.  Large  formal  dinners  are  some- 
times a  necessity  ;  but  at  a  dinner  of  this  kind,  where 
every  one's  place  is  marked  out  for  him  by  etiquette 
and  official   rank,  little  can  be  accomplished.     Such 

*  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  93,  32d  Congress,  ist  Session,  pp. 
25,  26. 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  I  53 

dinners  only  lead  to  intimacy.  But  when  a  minister 
has  arrived  at  the  point  where  he  can  invite  the  Prime 
Minister  or  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  to  a  small 
dinner  of  six  or  eight  persons,  where  conversation  is 
free  and  unreserved,  he  may  then  feel  that  he  is  on 
a  footing  which  will  enable  him  easily  to  accomplish 
his  diplomatic  business. 

We  may  see,  therefore,  that  if  for  any  reason, 
though  it  may  be  from  an  absurd  prejudice,  a  minister 
is  socially  unpleasant  to  the  government  or  to  the  so- 
ciety of  the  place,  he  is  unfit  to  be  a  minister  in  that 
particular  capital.  It  is  partly  for  that  reason  that  all 
governments  have  maintained  their  right  to  refuse  to 
receive  a  particular  person  as  minister,  without  giving 
any  reasons ;  for  these  reasons  may  be  as  often  on  ac- 
count of  his  lack  of  social  qualification  as  on  account  of 
any  political  grievance  against  him.  When  a  minister 
is  for  any  reason  disagreeable,  while  he  may  be  received 
with  all  the  formal  politeness  due  to  him  whenever  he 
appears  in  an  ofHcial  capacity ;  while  he  may  be  invited 
to  court  when  the  invitation  could  not  be  omitted  with- 
out offence  to  the  country  which  he  represents,  he  may 
be  entirely  ignored  in  every  other  way ;  and  in  this  state 
of  social  isolation  he  is  certainly  incapable  either  of 
properly  representing  his  country  of  of  giving  proper 
protection  to  its  interests.  Take  a  recent  case,  which 
has  excited  some  comment.  A  gentleman  was  ap- 
pointed minister  to  Austria.     The  hints  first  given  by 


154  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the  Austrian  government  were  not  regarded,  and  his  ac- 
ceptance was  urged ;  so  that  the  Austrian  government 
was  finally  obliged  to  decline  peremptorily  to  receive 
him.  One  objection  to  him  was  a  social  one — that  his 
wife  was  by  birth  a  Jewess.  However  absurd  such  a 
race  prejudice  may  seem,  it  is  found  that  any  attempt 
to  go  counter  to  it  would  result  in  the  social  isolation 
of  the  minister ;  and  we  might  as  well  have  no  minister 
at  all  as  a  minister  so  placed.  The  court  of  Vienna  is 
bound  by  very  strict  rules  of  etiquette,  which  not  even 
the  Emperor  feels  at  liberty  to  overstep.  And  the 
society  of  Vienna  has  adopted  still  stricter  ones.  Al- 
though Hebrews  have  been  received  at  the  Austrian 
court,  they  have  been  received  only  officially^  for 
there  are  now  many  persons  of  Hebrew  race  in  the 
Austrian  service,  and  their  wives  have  not  come 
within  the  official  category.  In  order  for  an  Austrian 
lady  to  be  able  to  appear  at  court,  she  must  show  at 
least  four  generations  of  nobility.  It  is  said  that  some 
years  ago,  when  the  first  bourgeois  ministers  were  ap- 
pointed in  Austria,  while  they  were  officially  invited 
to  a;  court  ball  their  wives  were  omitted.  The  ladies 
were  indignant,  and  brought  a  sufficient  pressure  to 
bear  upon  their  husbands  to  induce  them  to  resign 
their  offices  if  their  wives  were  not  invited  to  the  ball. 
The  Emperor  was  in  a  dilemma,  for  he  could  not  dis- 
pense with  such  useful  ministers,  neither  could  he 
override  the  rules  of   court  etiquette.     He  adopted. 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS,  I  55 

however,  a  very  simple  expedient — he  ennobled  the 
long-deceased  great-grandfathers  of  the  ladies  in  ques- 
tion, which  thus  gave  them  the  personal  right  to  ap- 
pear. Such  things  have  been  done  before ;  for  Lord 
Malmesbury  in  his  "  Correspondence  "  mentions  the 
fact  that  Potemkin,  the  favorite  of  the  Empress 
Catharine  II.,  was  made  a  Prince  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire  for  three  generations  back.* 

It  is  not  only  at  Vienna  that  a  similar  spirit  is 
shown.  One  of  the  present  rules  of  the  English  court  is 
that  ladies  who  have  been  divorced,  no  matter  whether 
innocent  or  guilty,  cannot  appear  there.  And  for  this 
reason  the  ambassador  of  a  great  power,  still  in  service 
in  another  country,  was  rejected  not  long  ago  by  the 
Queen,  because  he  had  married  a  lady  divorced  from 
a  former  husband.  On  account  of  the  social  complica- 
tions often  caused  by  imprudent  marriages,  it  is  a  rule 
with  some  governments  that  no  diplomatic  official  can 
marry,  without  the  preliminary  consent  of  his  superi- 
ors; and  it  is  known  that  Prince  Bismarck  strongly 
objects  to  German  diplomatists  marrying  foreigners. 

Ceremonial  and  social  duties  take  up  a  large  part  of 
a  minister's  time ;  but  those  who  have  been  noted  as 
our  best  and  ablest  representatives  have  always  been 
most  punctilious  in  their  performance.  No  one  has 
ever  served  us  better  than  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  ; 

*  Lord  Malmesbury's  Diaries  and  Correspondence,  i.,  p.  527. 
Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  4,  49th  Congress,  ist  Session. 


156  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  yet  we  may  see  from  his  "  Diary  "  that  night  after 
night  he  went  into  society,  danced,  played  cards, 
talked,  and  ingratiated  himself  with  the  people  about 
him.  In  spite  of  certain  peculiarities  derived  from 
his  Puritan  ancestry,  peculiarities  which  were  some- 
times disagreeable  when  they  showed  themselves,  Mr. 
Adams  was  a  man  not  only  fond  of  society,  but  very 
popular  in  society ;  and,  in  a  word,  combined  the  most 
useful  external  diplomatic  qualities  with  those  of  in- 
tellect, study,  and  experience. 

It  might  be  asked,  then,  what  time  has  a  minister 
left  to  attend  to  his  particular  diplomatic  duties ;  and 
what  duties  in  general  does  he  have  to  perform  ?  It 
is  not  everywhere  and  on  all  occasions  that  great 
diplomatic  questions  arise  which  require  study  or  rea- 
soning. In  fact  we  might  almost  say  that  ministers 
are  sent  abroad  in  order  to  do  nothing ;  i.e.,  that  by 
perceiving  the  drift  of  little  things,  watching  for  any 
slight  event  which  may  grow  into  a  huge  difficulty  if 
uncared  for,  he  may  prevent  great  questions  from  aris- 
ing. Ministers  are,  as  it  were,  sentinels  or  outposts  to 
prevent  difficulties  between  nations.  Naturally  dif- 
ficulties may  arise  which  by  no  possibility  could  be 
prevented  by  a  minister ;  and  he  is  then  called  upon 
to  do  his  best  to  settle  them.  We  may  have  peaceful 
and  tranquil  relations  with  a  country  for  thirty  or 
even  fifty  years,  with  slight  expectations  of  these  rela- 
tions being  in   any  way  disturbed,  when   suddenly, 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 5/ 

owing  to  the  fault  or  misunderstanding  of  a  subordi- 
nate official,  some  question  may  arise  which,  in  a  cer- 
tain state  of  public  opinion,  may  almost  bring  about  a 
war.  Who,  for  instance,  could  have  expected  the  out- 
burst of  popular  feeling  which  nearly  produced  a  war 
between  Spain  and  Germany  on  account  of  the  occu- 
pation of  the  Caroline  Islands  ?  Who  can  tell  whether 
the  sudden  death  of  the  King  of  Spain  may  not  ulti- 
mately produce  complications  in  that  country  which 
may  extend  to  Cuba  and  cause  us  serious  embarrass- 
ment, and  new  difficulties,  hard  to  be  solved  without 
great  tact  and  discretion  on  the  part  of  our  representa- 
tives ?  The  suddenness  with  which  an  incident  may 
arise  is  one  reason  why  it  is  far  better  to  have  a  repre- 
sentative on  the  spot  than  to  trust  to  sending  a  special 
commissioner  after  the  difficulty  has  arisen.  A  little 
tact  may  put  to  rest  wounded  feeling,  and  soothe  na- 
tional honor  at  the  very  beginning ;  while,  if  free  play 
were  left  to  party  newspapers  and  home  politicians  in 
both  countries,  the  quarrel  might  be  so  augmented 
that  even  a  special  commissioner  would  be  unable  to 
settle  it. 

But  in  the  absence  of  great  questions  there  are 
routine  duties  at  most  legations  sufficient  to  occupy  a 
good  portion  of  a  minister's  time,  if  he  understands 
his  business.  Naturally,  where  the  minister,  as  too 
frequently  happens,  goes  abroad  with  no  knowledge 
of  history,  of  foreign  politics,  or  of  languages,  he  is 


158  A  M ERIC  A  N  DIPL  OMA  C  Y. 

unable  to  see  a  hundred  little  ways  in  which  he  may 
be  of  use  to  the  United  States,  either  by  giving  in- 
formation or  noting  down  precedents.  There  is  a 
certain  amount  of  daily  work  always  to  be  done, 
either  by  the  secretary  of  the  legation,  or  by  the 
minister,  if  there  be  no  secretary.  Despatches  have  to 
be  written  in  certain  specified  forms ;  these  despatches 
have  to  be  copied  regularly  into  books,  and  must  be, 
in  addition,  registered.  The  despatches  and  letters 
received  at  the  legation  must  also  be  registered,  care- 
fully filed,  bound,  and  indexed,  and  a  daily  journal 
kept  of  business  of  any  kind  which  maybe  transacted ; 
memoranda  must  be  written  out  and  filed  of  conver- 
sations on  public  business  with  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  or  with  other  persons. 

As  to  despatches,  a  minister  should  write  neither 
too  much  nor  too  little.  If  his  pen  be  too  facile,  if 
he  allow  himself  to  comment  too  much  on  general 
politics,  whether  of  Europe  or  of  America,  if  his  de- 
spatches be  too  long,  they  are  apt  to  be  left  unread  in 
the  files  of  the  Department,  and  the  valuable  infor- 
mation which  he  may  send,  being  lost  in  a  heap  of 
rubbish,  is  unnoticed.  At  the  same  time  he  should 
not  in  general  communicate  to  his  government  long 
accounts  of  unimportant  events  that  may  as  well  be 
learned  from  the  newspapers.  He  should  endeavor 
to  fill  his  despatches  only  with  what  Q.2iX\not  be  learned 
from    the   newspapers  as  to  the  intentions,  feelings, 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  I  59 

and  wishes  of  the  government  to  which  he  is  accred- 
ited, the  springs  of  their  action,  and  accounts  of  ne- 
gotiations in  which  they  are  engaged,  especially  if  in 
any  manner  they  may  concern  his  own  country. 

He  should  neglect  nothing,  however  seemingly 
trifling  at  the  moment,  which  may  in  any  possible 
way  affect  the  interests  of  his  own  country,  whether 
in  its  policy  or  its  commerce.  There  is  no  need  to 
describe  at  length  the  opening  of  the  legislative  cham- 
ber, and  certainly  not  court  balls  and  other  ceremonies, 
unless  from  some  incident  they  derive  unusual  impor- 
tance; but  as  it  is  always  convenient  for  the  State 
Department  that  the  series  of  despatches  from  each 
capital  should  show  in  some  way  the  political  history 
of  the  country,  it  is  of  benefit  to  send  printed  copies 
of  the  royal  speeches  at  the  opening  of  Parliament, 
and  notices  of  any  change  of  ministry  or  of  high  offi- 
cials, with  accounts  of  the  new  persons  coming  into 
power. 

Complaints  of  all  kinds  will  continually  be  brought 
to  a  legation  of  acts  of  injustice  toward  American 
citizens,  and  the  settlement  of  these  is  one  of  the 
minister's  most  important  duties.  Such  complaints 
are  naturally  most  frequent  in  countries  which  have 
not  reached  the  highest  stage  of  civilization,  or  where 
the  laws  are  not  regularly  and  impartially  adminis- 
tered. A  minister  will  generally  try  to  arrange  such 
little  difficulties  by  personal  conversation  and  appli- 


l60  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

cation  to  the  proper  officials,  without  making  a  written 
complaint  to  the  Foreign  Office,  and  thus  making  a 
formal  business  of  them,  except  where  they  are  very 
grave  violations  of  our  rights,  and  where  a  principle 
is  involved  that  a  minister  himself  is  unable  to  settle 
unofficially.  In  such  minor  cases  he  would  generally 
do  well  not  to  report  his  action  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  until  his  unofficial  applications  have  been  acted 
upon;  for  when  such  a  case  is  reported  home,  the 
State  Department  is  naturally  very  cautious,  and 
desires  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  matter  before 
taking  steps  which  might  bind  the  Government,  and 
the  minister  does  not  then  feel  authorized  to.  act  un- 
less specially  instructed  from  home.  A  man  may 
suffer  great  injustice  for  a  long  time  in  a  very  simple 
matter,  which  might  have  been  remedied  at  once 
while  the  minister  was  waiting  for  instructions.  This 
is  pure  red  tape,  and  giving  too  much  importance  to 
minor  things. 

The  greater  part  of  the  complaints  presented  to  our 
legations  come  from  naturalized  citizens,  on  account 
of  supposed  interferences  with  their  rights.  Certainly 
a  naturalized  citizen  should  be  protected  in  the  same 
manner  as  one  of  native  birth ;  but  unfortunately 
most  of  these  complaints  arise  from  the  naturalized 
citizen  having  returned  to  the  place  of  his  birth,  hav- 
ing got  into  difficulties  with  the  government  to  which 
he  formerly  owed  allegiance,  and  using  his  certificate 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  l6l 

of  naturalization  simply  as  a  means  of  evading  his  ob- 
ligations to  both  governments.  In  Germany,  for  in- 
stance, this  is  very  frequently  the  case.  Young  Ger- 
mans are  continually  coming  to  the  United  States, 
getting  naturalized,  and  then  returning  to  Germany 
to  pass  the  rest  of  their  lives,  having  by  this  process 
escaped  the  obligations  of  military  service.  We  have 
a  treaty  with  Germany  on  the  subject  of  naturaliza- 
tion, and  our  experience  has  been  that  the  German 
government  has  always  been  ready  to  satisfy  the  re- 
quest of  the  legation  as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  even 
when  the  equity  of  the  complaint  might  be  disputed. 
In  fact,  I  think  any  one  of  our  recent  ministers  to 
Germany  would  admit — when  speaking  privately — 
that  nine-tenths  of  the  complaints  brought  before 
them  are  on  their  face  without  equity  and  justice, 
though  coming  under  the  letter  of  the  treaty,  and 
should  not  really  be  attended  to.  Unfortunately  our 
legal  authorities  maintain  that  a  certificate  of  natural- 
ization is  in  the  nature  of  a  judgment  pronounced  by 
a  court ;  and  that  therefore  it  cannot  be  set  aside  ex- 
cept by  the  court  itself,  no  matter  how  evident  may 
be  the  fraud  by  which,  or  the  fraudulent  purpose  for 
which,  it  was  obtained. 

Commercial  difficulties  are  now  those  which  are 
most  frequent,  and  which  give  most  work  to  our  lega- 
tions.    In  the  year  1883  the  United  States  exported 

to  foreign  countries  six  hundred  and  twenty-nine  and 
II 


1 62  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

a  quarter  million  dollars'  worth  of  raw  material,  and 
one  hundred  and  seventy-five  million  dollars'  worth 
of  manufactured  goods.  This  is  an  amount  sufficient 
to  make  a  disturbance  in  the  markets  of  the  world ; 
and  with  the  protectionist  policy  which  is  growing  in 
nearly  all  countries  that  are  endeavoring  to  develop 
their  manufactures,  efforts  of  various  kinds  are  being 
made  by  foreign  governments  to  hinder  this  too  great 
commercial  rivalry  of  the  United  States.  These 
efforts  take  different  forms ;  sometimes  by  increase  of 
the  tariff ;  sometimes  in  more  insidious  ways  by  rais- 
ing the  freight  tariff  on  railways  for  foreign  goods,  or 
by  excluding  certain  articles  on  account  of  their  being 
injurious  to  health.  A  minister  should  keep  a  watch- 
ful eye  on  all  measures  relating  to  commerce  which 
may  in  any  way  affect  our  interests.  He  should  not 
confine  himself  solely  to  dealings  with  the  Foreign 
Office.  That  is  his  official  mode  of  communication. 
But  he  should  use  the  social  position  which  he  has 
been  able  to  acquire  for  impressing  upon  deputies, 
statesmen,  and  even  members  of  mercantile  bodies, 
the  dangers  of  such  a  course  and  the  difficulties  which 
might  arise  with  his  Government.  In  other  words, 
he  should  endeavor  to  stifle  these  difficulties  at  the 
outset. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  annoyances  which  American 
ministers  abroad  have  to  endure  are  those  caused  by 
their  travelling  countrymen,  who  desire  social  assist- 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  163 

ance  and  information.  Many  Americans  suppose  the 
legation  and  consulate  to  be  offices  of  information  for 
their  own  special  benefit,  to  receive  ^heir  letters  and 
parcels,  obtain  tickets  for  them  to  galleries  and  mu- 
seums, to  act  both  as  guide-book  and  courier,  and  ask 
and  obtain  invitations  for  them  into  general  society 
and  presentations  at  court.  Many  things  are  asked 
which  could  be  obtained  with  perfect  ease  elsewhere ; 
and  it  will  depend  on  the  tact  and  good-nature  of  the 
official  himself  as  to  how  far  he  will  allow  such  re- 
quests to  annoy  him.  By  compliance  as  far  as  possi- 
ble with  requests  that  are  reasonable,  by  receiving  let- 
ters, and  having  on  hand  a  store  of  tickets,  he  will 
probably  get  throiigh  more  easily  than  if  he  stood  on 
his  dignity  and  sent  the  applicants  away  disappointed 
and  snubbed.  As  to  introductions  into  society,  the 
minister  certainly  should  not  be  called  to  do  any- 
thing of  this  kind.  The  only  way  in  which  he  could 
reasonably  present  a  travelling  American  to  the  social 
world  in  which  he  moved  would  be  at  his  own 
house ;  and  he  should  be  allowed  to  choose  the  per- 
sons to  whom  he  extends  his  hospitality.  As  to  pres- 
entations at  court,  there  is  even  still  more  difficulty. 
In  some  countries,  where  there  are  large  numbers  of 
persons  to  be  invited  to  state  balls  and  concerts,  a 
minister  is  soon  given  to  understand  that  it  is  pre- 
ferred that  he  should  not  make  requests  for  presenta- 
tions.    Other  courts,  where  the  society  is  more  re- 


1 64  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

stricted,  are  often  very  glad  to  receive  foreigners  ;  and 
there  it  is  comparatively  easy  to  obtain  the  presenta- 
tion of  a  reputj^ble  and  agreeable  person.  So  great, 
however,  has  sometimes  been  the  demand  for  presen- 
tations, that  at  some  courts  restrictive  rules  have  been 
made  in  consequence. 

It  has  been  frequently  maintained  that  the  rapidity 
of  communications  and  the  general  dissemination  of 
news  render  the  system  of  resident  diplomatic  agents 
useless  ;  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  a  secretary  or 
a  consul  would  be  able  to  perform  all  the  necessary 
work,  unless  some  important  question  arose,  when 
some  one  could  be  sent  on  a  special  mission  to  ar- 
range the  matter  ;  or  that  the  respective  Ministers  of 
Foreign  Affairs  could  communicate  directly  with  each 
other  by  telegraph,  without  the  intervention  of  a 
third  person.  Even  if  this  were  the  case,  it  would  be 
impossible  for  us  to  inaugurate  such  a  system  with- 
out the  consent  of  all  the  world. 

"  There  is  (as  Wheaton  says)  no  legal  obligation  to  receive 
or  send  public  ministers ;  but  international  assent  to  the  system 
for  a  long  period  of  time  has  given  to  the  custom  the  force  of 
an  obligation  upon  all  civilized  powers,  and  it  cannot  be  aban- 
doned without  the  assent  of  nations.  Diplomatic  representa- 
tion is  a  definite  factor  in  the  political  economy  of  the  world  ; 
and  no  better  scheme  has  yet  been  devised  for  the  despatch 
of  international  affairs,  or  for  the  preservation  of  friendly  rela- 
tions between  governments.*" 

*  Report  of  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  April  26,  1884,  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  No. 
146,  48th  Congress,  ist  Session. 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  1 65 

Lord  Palmerston  expresses  the  present  importance 
of  diplomacy  very  well  in  the  examination  which  has 
been  before  referred  to.     He  was  asked  : 

"  Is  not  the  necessity  for  a  man  of  great  talent  and  experi- 
ence residing  at  a  place  to  act  for  the  government  at  home, 
much  diminished  since  you  have  been  enabled  to  communicate 
in  the  course  of  a  day,  and  especially  with  the  prospect  of  hav- 
ing by  the  end  of  this  year  the  electric  telegraph,  by  which  you 
will  be  enabled  to  communicate  with  Paris  in  a  quarter  of  an 
hour  ?  " 

Lord  Palmerston  replied  : 

"  No,  I  do  not  think  it  is.  I  think  it  is  equally  important  to 
have  an  able  agent  to  represent  you,  whether  he  is  one  day 
or  four  or  more  days  off ;  perhaps  it  is  less  at  a  great  distance  ; 
events  may  occur  which  may,  beyond  doubt,  either  compel 
him  to  take  great  responsibility,  or  may  subject  him  to  delay 
in  acting,  unless  he  can  get  instructions.  There  is  great  ad- 
vantage in  having  rapid  communication.  I  apprehend  that 
there  is  a  very  important  difference  between  communications 
carried  on  by  writing  and  communications"  carried  on  by  per- 
sonal intercourse.  I  should  fear  that  communications  carried 
on  by  writing  would  be  more  likely  to  end  ill  than  communi- 
cations carried  on  by  personal  intercourse.  I  should  be  very 
sorry  to  have  to  rely  upon  the  accounts  of  '■  our  own  corre- 
spondent.' The  news  of  public  events  that  have  happened, 
no  doubt  comes  as  quickly  by  newspaper  accounts  as  by  offi- 
cial despatches  ;  and  it  is  for  this  obvious  reason,  that  the 
newspapers  find  it  for  their  interest  to  make  very  expensive 
arrangements  for  obtaining  the  earliest  information  of  public 
events  that  occur.  But  the  despatch  of  your  minister  or  am- 
bassador is  not  so  much  to  tell  you  what  has  happened,  as  to 
inform  you  of  the  disposition  and  intentions  of  the  government 


1 66  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

with  which  he  is  in  relation.  That  information  you  cannot 
receive  from  the  correspondents  in  the  newspapers." 

Mr.  Bright  asked 

'*  Whether  it  would  not  be  practicable  to  transact  the  ordinary 
business  by  means  of  written  communications  between  the  two 
Foreign  Offices,  and  when  anything  arose  requiring  particular 
attention  to  have  a  special  mission  of  some  member  of  the 
cabinet  for  the  purpose  of  arranging  whatever  might  be  re- 
quired to  be  arranged." 

Said  Lord  Palmerston  : 

"  I  do  not  think  it  would  :  there  are  daily  and  weekly  mat- 
ters that  require  personal  communication.  Everybody  must 
know  the  extreme  difference  there  is  between  personal  com- 
munication between  men  who  are  in  the  habit  of  intercourse, 
and  the  exchange  of  letters  written  by  men  who,  perhaps, 
never  saw  each  other.  The  practice  at  present  existing  in 
diplomacy  combines  the  two,  because  it  frequently  happens 
that  a  despatch  is  written  by  a  government  to  its  diplomatic 
agent  at  a  foreign  court,  which  despatch  he  is  to  communicate 
to  the  court  just  as  it  is  written,  accompanying  it  with  such 
verbal  explanations  as  he  may  be  instructed  also  to  give." 

Subsequently  Mr.  Cobden  said  : 

"  If  you  go  back  two  or  three  hundred  years  ago,  when 
there  were  no  newspapers  ;  when  there  was  scarcely  such  a 
thing  as  international  postal  communication,  when  affairs  of 
State  turned  upon  a  court  intrigue,  or  the  caprice  of  a  mis- 
tress, or  a  Pope's  bull,  or  a  marriage,  was  it  not  of  a  great 
deal  more  consequence  at  that  time  to  have  ministers  at  for- 
eign courts,  who,  in  the  first  place  could  furnish  you  with  all 
necessary  information  of  what  was  going  on,  and  who  could, 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  l6y 

in  the  next  place,  influence  those  individuals  upon  whose  will 
the  destinies  of  Europe  so  greatly  depended  ?  Was  it  not  of 
much  more  importance  to  have  highly  paid  ministers  of  Eng- 
land at  foreign  courts  than  it  is  in  these  constitutional  times, 
when  all  affairs  of  state  are  discussed  in  the  public  newspapers 
and  in  the  legislative  assemblies,  and  when  every  incident  that 
occurs  is  reported  in  T^e  Times  newspaper  sooner  even  than 
you  can  have  it  in  the  Foreign  Office  by  your  ambassadors  or 
couriers  ?  Under  these  circumstances  are  not  the  functions  of 
an  ambassador  less  important  now  than  they  were  two  or  three 
hundred  years  ago  ?  " 

Lord  Palmerston  replied  : 

"  I  should  humbly  conceive  that  they  are  more  important  on 
account  of  the  very  circumstances  which  have  just  been  stated  ; 
because  when  the  affairs  of  a  country  were  decided  by  the  ca- 
price of  a  mistress,  by  a  back-stairs  intrigue,  or  by  a  Pope's 
bull,  it  is  obvious  that  your  ambassador  could  have  very  little 
influence  in  directing  any  of  these  operating  causes  ;  and  there- 
fore all  he  could  do  would  be  to  let  you  know,  if  he  could  find 
it  out,  how  those  secret  causes  were  acting.  But  in  proportion  as 
those  causes  were  secret,  it  was  more  difficult  for  him  to  arrive 
at  a  knowledge  of  these.  In  these  days,  as  is  well  stated  in  the 
question,  the  conduct  of  governments  is  influenced  by  public 
opinion,  by  what  passes  in  deliberative  assemblies,  and  by  in- 
ternational considerations,  rather  than  by  personal  caprices  and 
passions  ;  and  it  is  precisely  that  kind  of  consideration  which 
an  ambassador  can  bring  under  the  notice  and  press  upon  the 
attention  of  another  government.  Your  ambassador  can  tell 
the  minister  of  a  foreign  country  that  your  interests  are  so  and 
so  ;  that  the  public  opinion  of  your  country  runs  in  a  certain 
direction,  and  has  obtained  a  certain  height ;  that  there  are 
certain  things  that  your  government  can  do,  and  certain  things 
that  it  can  not  do ;  and  by  making  the  minister  of  that  country 


1 68  A  xM ERIC  AN  DIPLOMACY. 

aware  of  what  are  considered  the  interests  of  England,  and  what 
is  the  prevalent  public  opinion  of  England,  and  what  are  the  in- 
fluences which  control,  direct,  or  interfere  with  the  English 
government,  he  places  under  the  consideration  of  the  govern- 
ment to  which  he  is  accredited  matters  which  may  greatly  in- 
fluence the  conduct  of  that  government  with  regard  to  things 
which  may  involve  questions  of  peace  and  war  ;  which,  at  all 
events,  may  involve  questions  deeply  affecting  the  commercial 
interests  of  the  country,  and  therefore,  I  should  think  that  the 
change  which  has  taken  place  with  regard  to  the  transaction 
of  public  affairs  in  Europe  tends  to  make  diplomatic  agents  of 
more  importance  rather  than  of  less  importance."  * 

Among  the  various  efforts  to  reduce  the  expendi- 
ture- of  our  foreign  service,  and,  as  some  have  thought,, 
to  increase  its  efficiQncy,  it  has  been  proposed  that  we 
might  have  two  or  three  great  missions  on  each  conti- 
nent, the  chiefs  of  which  could  go  from  one  country 
to  another  as  special  business  arose.  This  proposal  is 
not  impossible  to  carry  into  effect,  in  spite  of  long  dis- 
tances. In  Europe,  for  instance,  the  countries  might 
be  grouped  together  in  such  a  way  that  four  or  five 
ministers  could  do  the  whole  of  the  work.  But  here 
a  difficulty  would  arise  which  would  destroy  the  ex- 
pected advantage.  These  ministers  would  necessarily 
have  to  travel  from  one  country  to  another,  residing 
for  a  few  months  in  each  country  to  which  they  are 
accredited,  in  order  to  become  acquainted  with  the 
leading  men  and  the  run  of  public  affairs.     For  that 

*  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  93,  32d  Congress,  ist  Session. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 69 

purpose  they  should  be  paid  large  salaries.  It  would 
also  be  necessary  to  have  on  the  spot  in  each  capital 
a  secretary  of  legation,  who  could  act  as  charge  d'af- 
faires and  inform  the  minister  when  it  was  necessary 
to  have  his  personal  presence.  The  resultant  of  all 
these  expenditures  could  not  be  less  than  the  amount 
now  spent ;  although  it  would  enable  us  to  pay  our 
ministers  much  better  than  they  are  now  paid.  There 
would  perhaps  be  the  disadvantage  that  none  of  the 
countries  to  which  our  minister  was  accredited  would 
feel  quite  as  well  disposed  to  the  United  States  as  if  a 
special  minister  were  kept  at  each  capital.  They 
would  reason,  perhaps  rather  loosely,  but  with  a  show 
of  argument  on  their  side :  "  The  United  States  is  a 
very  great  and  a  very  rich  country.  What  difference 
does  a  few  thousand  dollars  more  or  less  make-to  you  ? 
You  waste  far  more  than  that  sum  on  public  buildings 
and  river  and  harbor  bills.  If  you  show  politeness  to 
us  at  all — and  you  seem  to  put  it  in  that  way  rather 
than  from  any  advantage  it  is  to  yourselves — it  would 
be  better  to  show  politeness  in  the  way  that  we  appre- 
ciate, and  not  with  a  niggard  hand." 

After  all,  it  is  for  each  country  to  choose  the  way 
in  which  it  shall  be  served ;  and  if,  for  the  purposes  of 
efficiency,  for  reducing  the  number  of  officials,  for 
increasing  salaries,  or  for  economy,  or  even  for  mak- 
ing a  concession  to  a  strong — though  I  maintain 
wrong  and  uninformed — public  opinion  as  to  the  use 


170  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  necessity  of  a  diplomatic  service,  it  is  a  question 
simply  of  policy  and  expediency.  But  there  are 
many  examples  of  such  combinations.  We  now  com- 
bine the  missions  to  Greece,  Roumania,  and  Serbia. 
We  have  one  envoy  accredited  to  the  five  republics  of 
Central  America ;  so  do  Germany,  Great  Britain, 
France,  and  Spain.  We  have  a  charg6  d'affaires  to 
Uruguay  and  Paraguay,  though  those  two  countries 
are  many  hundred  miles  apart.  Other  countries  do 
the  same  thing,  Great  Britain  and  France  accrediting 
each  an  envoy  to  the  Argentine  Republic  and  Para- 
guay— a  more  natural  combination ;  Chili  to  Uruguay 
and  the  Argentine ;  and  Austria,  Germany,  Peru, 
Portugal,  and  Sweden  having  each  one  representative 
accredited  to  the  three  countries,  the  Argentine  Re- 
public, Paraguay,  and  Uruguay.  The  English  minister 
and  the  Italian  charge  d'affaires  to  Peru  are  accred- 
ited also  to  Bolivia.  Italy  combines  China  and 
Japan ;  Austria  and  Portugal  combine  China,  Japan, 
and  Siam ;  Great  Britain  combines  China  and  Corea. 
Even  in  Europe  this  practice  is  not  unknown.  Bel- 
gium, Holland,  Spain,  and  Portugal  each  combine 
Sweden  and  Denmark  into  one  mission  ;  Roumania 
and  Sweden  have  each  one  minister  accredited  to  Bel- 
gium and  Holland  ;  Turkey  accredits  the  same  min- 
ister to  Sweden  and  Holland ;  Greece  to  England 
and  Holland ;  Serbia  to  France  and  Belgium  ;  Mex- 
ico to  Spain  and    Portugal;   and  Great  Britain  has 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS,  I7I 

accredited  the  consul-general  at  Scutari  in  Albania  as 
minister  to  Montenegro.^' 

It  has  been  also  suggested  that  we  entirely  dis- 
pense with  the  diplomatic  service,  and  confide  diplo- 
matic functions  to  the  consular  officers  at  the  various 
capitals.  Now  this  proposition  has  an  appearance  of 
reason.  In  many  cities  there  is  not  so  much  business, 
consular  and  diplomatic  together,  that  it  could  not  be 
done  by  the  same  person,  or  at  least  by  the  same  of- 
fice. There  can  be  no  reason  why  in  most  of  the 
capitals  of  the  world  the  minister  could  not  be  charged 
with  consular  duties,  or  at  least  one  of  the  secretaries. 
Those  duties  are  generally  distinct  from  diplomatic 
ones  but  they  might  ezisily  be  combined  in  one  person. 
But  between  charging  a  minister  with  consular  duties 
and  a  consul  with  diplomatic  duties,  there  is  a  great 
difference.  A  minister  would  have  only  so  much 
added  to  his  daily  work ;  a  consul  would,  as  may  be 
seen  from  what  has  already  been  said,  be  placed  in  a 
very  different  situation  from  that  of  an  ordinary  con- 
sul. According  to  rules  now  recognized  by  all  the 
world,  including  the  United  States,  a  consul  thus 
charged  with  diplomatic  duties  would  be  recognized 
as  a  charge  d'affaires,  and  would  be  subject  to  all 
the  official  and  social  burdens  of  diplomatic  life,  with- 
out receiving  proper  compensation,  and  possibly  with- 

*  These  examples  are  all  taken  from  the  last  edition  of  the 
official  Almanack  de  Gotha* 


1 72  AMERICAN  DIPL OMA  C  Y. 

out  proper  preparation.  We  would  expect  our  diplo- 
matic representatives  always  to  be  in  subordinate 
position,  and  in  most  countries  a  consul-general  charg6 
d'affaires  ranks  below  charges  d'affaires  proper;  and 
yet  demand  from  them  results  which  can  be  achieved 
only  by  men  who  stand  in  the  highest  positions.  They 
would  neither  have  power  nor  dignity,  but  would  be 
saddled  with  all  the  duties  of  ministers,  with,  of  course, 
less  pay. 

In  deference  to  this  feeling  of  simplifying  our  rep- 
resentation abroad,  there  have  been  various  cases 
where  consular  and  diplomatic  powers  have  been 
united  in  the  same  person.  Our  ministers  to  several 
countries — Switzerland,  Portugal,  Denmark,  Greece, 
Roumania,  and  Serbia,  and  some  of  the  South  Amer- 
ican countries — are  consuls-general  as  well ;  and  this 
has  not  been  found  to  work  badly.*  Their  consular 
duties  have  not  hindered  their  diplomatic  work,  nor 
injured  their  social  position.  Their  diplomatic  posi- 
tion, in  small  capitals,  by  no  means  prevents  their 
knowing  the  heads  of  the  mercantile  world ;  on  the 
contrary,  it  assists  in  it,  and  they  have  every  oppor- 
tunity to  understand  our  commercial  needs  in  those 
countries,  and  the  peculiar  conditions  under  which  our 

*They  have,  indeed,  one  natural  advantage  over  those  who 
are  exclusively  ministers.  They  receive  their  allowances  for 
office-rent  and  contingent  expenses  according  to  consular  and 
not  according  to  diplomatic  rules. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  I73 

trade  is  carried  on.  In  the  same  way,  in  some  other 
cities,  such  as  Madrid,  Rome,  Vienna,  Constantinople, 
the  office  of  consul-general  has  been  at  times  united 
with  that  of  secretary  of  legation.  In  Constantinople, 
and  this  I  may  say  from  personal  experience,  there  was 
a  decided  gain  to  our  service  from  the  union  of  the 
two  offices,  making  one  head  instead  of  two.  In  Mad- 
rid, where  the  consular  business  is  small,  this  was 
equally  the  case.  It  would  have  been  true  also  in  all 
of  the  small  capitals  of  Europe,  and  even  in  St.  Peters- 
burg and  Rome.  In  Vienna  the  consul-general  had 
too  much  business  to  allow  him  to  perform  the  duties 
of  secretary  of  legation  also,  and  neither  here  nor  in 
capitals  like  Paris,  London,  or  Berlin,  could  this  union 
have  been  effected  unless  there  were  one  or  two  other 
secretaries  of  legation  to  perform  the  necessary  work. 
The  diplomatic  title  would  in  that  case  be  given  to  the 
consul-general  simply  for  social  reasons,  as  it  would 
obtain  for  him  a  higher  standing  in  the  society  of  the 
place.  At  Rome  alone,  of  all  places  where  this  union 
was  tried,  were  there  objections  from  the  government 
of  the  country :  the  Italian  government  refused  to  ac- 
cept the  consul-general  as  secretary  of  legation.  It 
is  impossible  to  judge  of  the  action  of  the  Italian  gov- 
ernment in  this  case  without  knowing  exactly  in  what 
manner  the  proposition  was  put  to  them.  If,  when  it 
was  proposed,  it  was  hinted  in  any  way  that  such  a 
union  would  be  disagreeable  to  the  legation,  the  Ital- 


174  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ian  government,  out  of  regard  to  the  legation,  might 
have  refused.  It  certainly  could  not  have  done  so  on 
principle ;  for  in  several  of  the  states  of  South  America 
the  Italian  government  unites  its  chief  diplomatic  and 
consular  functions  in  the  same  person ;  and  it  could 
hardly  have  maintained  that  what  was  good  for  Amer- 
ica was  not  good  also  for  Rome.*  Perhaps  it  might 
have  been  different  if  the  case  had  been  reversed,  and 
the  secretary  named  consul-general. 

Such  unions,  are  however,  no  novelty ;  for  while  in 
most  countries  the  consular  and  diplomatic  services 
are  kept  in  a  measure  distinct,  in  all  countries  persons 
not  unfrequently  pass  from  one  to  the  other.  Some 
of  the  most  distinguished  men  in  the  diplomatic  ser- 
vice of  all  countries  have  been  originally  subordinates 
in  the  consular  service.  There  was  a  time  in  St.  Peters- 
burg when  both  the  English  and  the  German  consuls 
were  secretaries  of  legation.  Even  now  the  Austrian 
consuls-general  at  London  and  Paris  have  the  rank  of 
minister  resident,  and  are  directors  of  the  Commercial 
Chancery  of  the  embassy.  In  Paris  the  English  con- 
sul is  a  member  of  the  embassy.  In  Morocco,  Persia, 
China,  and  Japan  the  English  envoy  extraordinary  and 
minister  plenipotentiary  is  at  the  same  time  consul- 

*  Italy  maintains  in  Morocco  a  minister  resident,  who  is  also 
consul-general  ;  in  Chili,  Guatemala,  Mexico,  Peru,  and  Uru- 
guay consuls-general,  who  are  also  charge  d'affaires,  and  in 
Paraguay  a  consul  and  charge  d'affaires. 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  1/5 

general.  In  Peru,  New  Grenada,  Ecuador,  Chili, 
Hayti,  Central  America,  and  Uruguay,  the  English 
ministers  resident  are  also  consuls-general,  and  the 
commissioner  to  the  Sandwich  Islands  also  performs 
consular  duties.  In  Washington,  the  Danish  and  Swe- 
dish ministers  are  also  consuls-general ;  in  Central 
America,  Ecuador,  Siam  and  Uruguay,  the  French 
charge  d'affaires  is  consul-general ;  in  the  Argentine 
Republic,  the  Austrian  minister  and  the  Belgian 
charge  d'affaires,  are  consuls-general;  in  Bolivia  and 
Uruguay,  the  Spanish  charge  d'affaires  is  consul-gen- 
eral ;  in  Brazil,  the  Venezuelan  charge  d'affaires  is 
consul-general,  though  Venezuela  has  refused  to  ac- 
cept the  minister  of  the  United  States  in  a  dual 
capacity ;  in  China,  the  Dutch  minister  is  consul-gen- 
eral ;  in  Corea,  the  Russian  minister  is  consul-general ; 
in  Hawaii,  the  French  and  Portuguese  commission- 
ers are  consuls-general ;  in  Japan  the  Portuguese 
charge  d'affaires  is  consul-general ;  and  in  Portugal, 
the  Swedish  minister  is  also  consul-general.  In  sev- 
eral other  countries,  ministers  or  some  members  of  the 
legation  perform  the  duties  of  consuls-general  without 
bearing  the  title. 

Owing  to  the  habit  of  considering  our  missions 
abroad  simply  as  convenient  places  to  dispose  of  po- 
litical partisans  who  are  desirous  of  obtaining  a  good 
sinecure,  or  who  have  failed  of  re-election  by  their 
constituents,  our  legations  have  generally  been  classi- 


176  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

fied  according  to  the  amount  of  salary  paid  to  them, 
although  this  should  be  considered  simply  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  various  expenses  necessary  in  dif- 
ferent places.  I  should  be  disposed  to  arrange  our 
missions  abroad  very  differently,  according  to  their 
relative  importance.  In  the  first  place  naturally 
comes  England,  not  only  because  England  is  the 
country  nearest  allied  to  us  by  blood  and  by  commer- 
cial interests,  but  because  along  our  whole  northern 
frontier  extends  an  English  possession,  and  English 
colonies  surround  us  on  every  side.  We  have  com- 
mercial difficulties,  difficulties  with  fisheries,  difficul- 
ties with  Indians  on  the  frontier,  and  difficulties  with 
our  own  citizens  of  Irish  birth  who  naturally  sympa- 
thize with  their  native  country.  Next  to  this,  for  a 
similar  reason,  should  come  Spain,  on  account  of  the 
Spanish  colonies  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  lying  near 
us,  of  the  commercial  restrictions  which  we  are  under 
with  those  colonies,  and  of  the  danger  of  annexation 
which  every  disturbance  there  brings  nearer  us. 
After  this  come  Mexico,  the  countries  of  Central  and 
South  America,  where  we  wish  to  preserve  a  political 
as  well  as  a  commercial  predominance,  and  to  prevent 
enterprises  of  European  powers ;  the  Hawaiian  Isl- 
ands, which  we  are  bound  to  regard  always  as  an  out- 
lying part  of  America ;  Eastern  Asia,  China,  Japan, 
and  Siam,  where  we  have  large  commercial  interests 
capable  of  being  greatly  increased.     After  these  only 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  177 

should  come  Germany,  the  first  of  all  European 
states  not  mentioned,  on  account  of  the  number  of 
Germans  naturalized  or  domiciled  in  this  country, 
the  great  commerce,  and  the  difficulties  arising  from 
both.  After  Germany  are  France,  the  rest  of  Euro- 
pean countries,  Africa,  and  Persia. 

There  are  at  present  in  the  diplomatic  service  of 
the  United  States  fifteen  envoys  extraordinary  and 
ministers  plenipotentiary,  sixteen  ministers  resident, 
twelve  of  whom  are  also  consuls-general,  one  charge 
d'affaires  (to  Paraguay  and  Uruguay),  and  one  diplo- 
matic agent  and  consul-general  (to  Egypt).  We  have 
representatives  in  every  independent  and  semi-inde- 
pendent country  of  Europe,  except  Montenegro  and 
Bulgaria ;  in  every  country  of  South  America,  except 
Ecuador;  and  in  all  those  parts  of  Asia  and  Africa 
with  which  we  have  any  relations.  Why  Ecuador 
should  be  omitted  is  very  hard  to  say.  We  have  re- 
cently had  a  difficulty  with  that  country,  which  was 
aggravated  by  the  lack  of  a  diplomatic  representative 
on  our  side,  for  Ecuador  maintains  one  here.  We 
finally  settled  the  dispute  by  a  display  of  naval  force, 
and  thus  set  a  very  bad  precedent  for  other  countries 
to  follow  in  dealing  with  the  American  republics.  In 
Bulgaria  the  presence  of  a  consular  officer  possessing 
diplomatic  powers,  i.e.,  a  diplomatic  agent  and  con- 
sul-general (the  form  usual  in  semi-independent  coun- 
tries), is  necessary  for  the  interests  of  our  commerce 


178  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

and  for  the  protection  of  Americans  and  their  prop- 
erty ;  for  there  are  more  Americans  established  in 
Bulgaria  than  in  Roumania  and  Serbia  combined. 
Now  that  Montenegro  has  a  port  on  the  Adriatic, 
the  minister  to  Greece  could  also  be  accredited  to 
that  country,  without  adding  greatly  to  his  duties. 

The  total  cost  of  our  diplomatic  service  during  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1885,  was  $410,246.66. 
The  sum  of  $3,834  was  taken  in  for  passport  fees. 
The  cost  of  the  British  diplomatic  service  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1884,  was  $1,205,654. 
The  following  comparative  table  will  show  the  rank 
and  salaries  of  the  chief  diplomatic  officers  of  the 
United  States,  Great  Britain,  and  France. 

These  salaries  do  not,  however,  represent  entirely 
the  differences,  for  while  the  allowances  to  our  min- 
isters for  office-rent  and  for  the  contingent  expenses 
are  very  small,  those  in  the  English  and  French  ser- 
vices are  very  liberal.  Their  ministers  either  have  an 
allowance  large  enough  to  enable  them  to  hire  a  com- 
fortable and  convenient  house  (not  office),  or  have 
the  use  of  a  house  belonging  to  the  government.  In 
Constantinople,  for  example,  the  English  government 
owns  two  large  houses,  almost  palaces,  one  in  town 
and  one  in  the  country  on  the  Bosphorus.  So  also 
do  France,  Germany,  Russia,  and  Italy.  Nearly  every 
other  government  but  our  own  has  at  least  one.  So 
in  many  capitals  of  Europe ;  and  in  the  extreme  East 


Great  Britain 

France  

Germany 

Russia 

Austria- Hungary  . 

Italy 

Spain 

Turkey 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

Denmark 

Portugal 

Switzerland 

Greece 

Roumania 

Serbia 

Bulgaria 

Hayti 

San  Domingo  .... 

Mexico 

Central  America . . 

Colombia 

Venezuela 

Brazil 

Uruguay 

Paraguay  

Argentine 

Chili 

Peru 

Bolivia 

Ecuador 

The  United  States 


Sandwich  Islands 

Japan  

China , 

Corea 

Siam , 

Persia , 


Liberia. . 
Morocco . 

Egypt... 

Congo . . . 


MAT 

IC    OF. 

FICIALS. 

179 

United  States. 

England. 

France. 

e. 

117,500 
17,500 

a. 

$40,000 

e. 

a. 

$50,000 

e. 

17,500 

a. 

35,000 

a. 

28,000 

e. 

17,500 

a. 

39,oco 

a. 

50,000 

e. 

12,000 

a. 

40,000 

a. 

34,000 

e. 

12,000 

a. 

35,000 

a. 

22,000 

e. 

12,000 

e. 

30,000 

a. 

24,000 

e. 

10,000 

a. 

40,000 

a. 

26,000 

m. 

7,500 

e. 

17,400 

e. 

12,000 

m. 

7,500 

e. 

18,000 

e. 

12,000 

m. 

7,500 

e. 

15,000 

e. 

10,000 

m.c. 

5,000 

e. 

15,000 

e. 

10,000 

m.  c. 

5,000 

e. 

20,000 

e. 

12,000 

m.c. 

5,000 

e. 

6,250 

a. 

I2,OCO 

) 

e. 

17,500 

e. 

12,000 

V  m.  c.  6, 500 

e. 

10,000 

e. 

10,000 

\ 

m. 

6,000 

e. 

7,000 

ag.  c. 
m.c. 

6,000 
6,000 

ag.c. 
e. 

6,000 
6,000 

)■  m.( 
e. 

:.  5,000 

12,000 

e. 

15,000 

e. 

16,000 

e. 

10,000 

m.c. 

10,000 

ch.c 

6,000 

e. 

7,500 

m.c. 

10,000 

ch.c 

6,000 

m.c. 

7,500 

m. 

10,000 

c. 

6,000 

e. 

12,000 

e. 

20,000 

e. 

16,000 

m.c. 

5,000 

m.c 

8,000 

ch.c 

6,800 

7,500 

15,000 

V 

14,000 

e. 

10,000 

m.c. 

10,000 

e. 

10,000 

e. 

10,000 

m.c. 

10,000 

I. 

10,000 

m.c. 

5,000 

ch.c! 
e. 

m.c. 
e. 

7,000 
30,000 

c.  5,500 

5,200 

m. 

7,500 

com. 

com. 

c.  4,200 

e. 

12,000 

e.c. 

30,000 

e. 

16,000 

e. 
m.c. 

12,000 
5,000 

V- 

30,000 

e. 

17,000 

m.c. 

5,000 

ag.c. 

8,000 

com. 

c.  5,000 

m.c. 

5,000 

e.c. 

25,000 

e. 

12,000 

m.c. 

5,000 
2,000 

e. 

c. 

e.c. 

10,000 

6,400 

ag.c. 

5,000 

ag.c. 

12,500 

ag.c. 

10,000 

ag. 

5,000 

.... 

NoTK. — In  the  above  table  a.  =  ambassador  ;  e.  =  envoy  extraordinary  and  minis- 
ter plenipotentiary  ;  m.  =  minister  resident  ;  c.  =  consul-general ;  ag.  =  diplomatic 
agent ;  ch.  =  charg^  d'affaires  ;  com.  =  commissioner.  The  salaries  are  calculated, 
for  convenience,  at  the  rate  of  five  dollars  to  the  pound  sterling,  and  five  francs  to  the 
dollar. 


l8o  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

this  practice  is  universal,  there  being  no  other  way  of 
providing  for  the  legation.  Our  Government  owns 
houses  only  in  Siam  and  Morocco,  but  the  need  of 
them  is  urgent  in  China  and  Japan.  Owing  to  the 
constant  rise  of  property  in  all  large  cities  the  pur- 
chase of  legation-houses  would  not  be  bad  simply  as 
an  investment.  English  ministers  also  have  an  outfit 
in  order  to  enable  them  to  install  themselves  properly 
at  their  posts.  This  is  calculated  on  a  liberal  scale, 
being,  for  example,  $20,000  for  Paris;  $12,500  for 
Vienna,  Berlin,  and  St.  Petersburg;  $10,000,  for  China, 
Japan,  and  Persia,  Madrid  and  Washington,  and  never 
being  less  than  $2,000.  These  are  the  figures  for  the 
outfit  in  case  of  an  original  appointment.  On  pro- 
motion the  outfits  are  only  two-thirds  of  these 
amounts,  and  only  one-half  on  a  mere  transfer. 

In  the  early  part  of  our  Revolution  the  salary  of  a 
minister  plenipotentiary  was  ;^2,500,  equal  to  $11,100, 
besides  which  he  sometimes  had  an  allowance  for 
house-rent.  This  was  reduced  on  account  of  the  em- 
barrassed state  of  our  finances,  and  subsequently  the 
salary  of  a  full  minister  was  generally  $9,000 ;  that  of 
a  minister  resident  or  charge  d'affaires  was  $4,500. 
Each  was  allowed  one-half  of  a  year's  salary  as  outfit 
on  going  to  his  post,  and  one-quarter  of  a  year's  salary 
as  return  allowance  on  coming  home.  Although 
these  were  necessary  and  very  proper  allowances,  they 
were  productive  of  abuses,  owing  to  the  want  of  a 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  l8l 

fixed  tenure  of  office.  It  was  possible  for  an  admin- 
istration to  reward  a  partisan  by  appointing  him  to 
a  foreign  mission,  and  by  recalling  him,  or  allowing 
him  to  resign  after  a  year's  nominal  service,  or  even 
less,  during  which  he  was  often  absent  from  his  post, 
or  lived  cheaply  in  a  hotel  or  boarding-house.  In 
this  way,  with  considerable  time  spent  in  going  and 
coming,  by  not  resigning  until  he  had  reached  Amer- 
ica, and  had  enjoyed  his  leave  of  absence,  with  his 
outfit  and  infit,  a  minister  might  have  the  salary  of 
two  years  for  what  was  really  a  pleasure  trip,  with 
but  a  few  weeks  spent  at  his  post  of  duty.  The  mis- 
sion to  St.  Petersburg  of  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke 
is  a  notorious  instance  of  this  abuse.  It  was  custom- 
ary, also,  to  allow  about  a  year's  salary  to  a  minister 
sent  for  special  reasons,  as  to  negotiate  a  treaty,  to  a 
country  to  which  he  was  not  originally  accredited, 
in  addition  to  his  expenses.  In  this  way  a  charge 
d'affaires  at  Buenos  Ayres,  with  a  salary  of  $4,500,  re- 
ceived for  special  services  in  making  treaties  with 
Paraguay  and  Uruguay,  the  whole  work  of  which 
was  done  by  his  colleagues  or  friends,  the  sum  of  $14,- 
3  ;  and  a  minister  at  Constantinople,  with  a  salary 
of  $6,000,  received  $9,000  for  a  few  weeks '  services  in 
Greece,  whither  he -had  been  sent  to  arrange  for  the 
payment  .of  an  unjust  claim  of  a  missionary  who  had 
acted  as  consul.  A  consul-general  to  Japan,  in  1856, 
was  allowed   $10,000   for   concluding  a  treaty  with 


l82  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Siam.  The  law  of  1856  abolished  outfits,  and  in- 
creased the  salaries  of  the  ministers  to  about  the  point 
at  which  they  are  now  fixed.  In  some  cases,  as  at 
Copenhagen,  Lisbon,  and  Berne,  these  salaries  have 
been  reduced  since  that  time  by  a  third.  Such,  how- 
ever, is  the  traditional  power  of  an  ancient  abuse  that 
many  people  still  believe  that  a  minister  holds  a  sin- 
ecure, and  that  the  position  is  one  without  responsi- 
bility, which  is  to  be  sought  for  the  opportunity  of 
making  money,  or  for  taking  a  pleasure  trip  at  the 
expense  of  the  Government. 

There  appear  to  have  been  no  appropriations  for 
the  salaries  of  secretaries  of  legation  before  the  year 
1 83 1.  Up  to  that  time  each  minister  was  supposed  to 
pay  his  own  secretary,  and  he  therefore  considered  the 
copies  of  his  despatches,  as  well  as  his  instructions,  to 
be  his  personal  property,  and  took  them  away  on 
leaving  his  post.  From  reports  made  in  1832  we 
find  that  there  were  no  records  in  the  legation  at 
London  prior  to  1826,  nor  in  that  at  Paris  prior  to 
1 8 10,  nor  in  that  in  St.  Petersburg  before  1823.^'  By 
the  law  of  1856  the  salaries  of  secretaries  of  legation 
were  fixed  at  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  salaries  of  the 
ministers,  that  is,  from  $1,500  to  $2,625.  The  salaries 
of  second  secretaries  of  legation,-  or  assistant  secre- 
taries, as  they  were  at  first  called,  are  $2,000  each. 
Secretaries  have  no  outfit  nor  allowances  of  any  kind, 
*  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  94,  22d  Congress,  2d  Session. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 83 

and  must  pay  their  own  travelling  expenses.  When 
acting  as  charge  d'affaires  ad  interim,  they  receive  an 
amount  equal  to  one-half  of  the  minister's  salary  for 
that  time,  during  which,  however,  their  own  pay  ceases. 
In  the  English  service  the  secretaries  are  divided  into 
four  classes,  and  receive  from  $725  to  $5,000  yearly, 
besides  an  outfit  varying  from  $725  to  $2,000  to  the 
two  higher  grades,  and  an  allowance  to  secretaries 
of  embassy  at  from  $500  to  $1,000  for  house-rent. 
Their  travelling  expenses  are  paid  on  their  appoint- 
ment, transfer,  or  promotion.  When  acting  as  charge 
d'affaires  a  secretary  receives  in  addition  from  $5  to 
$30  a  day,  which  is  deducted  from  the  salary  of  the 
minister.  Besides  this,  a  secretary  of  legation,  after 
ten  years'  service  as  such,  receives  an  additional  $1,250 
a  year.  Secretaries  also  have  an  additional  allowance 
of  $500  yearly  if  they  have  passed  a  satisfactory  ex- 
amination in  Public  Law,  and  the  same  amount  for  a 
knowledge  of  Russian,  Turkish,  Persian,  Japanese,  or 
Chinese,  when  serving  in  the  countries  where  any  of 
those  languages  are  used. 

One  result  of  a  regular  service  is  that  in  most  coun- 
tries diplomatic  and  consular  functionaries  who  be- 
come incapacitated  by  age  or  illness,  are  entitled  to 
pensions,  regulated  partly  by  the  positions  they  have 
held  and  the  length  of  time  they  have  served.  In 
the  English  service  the  age  for  retirement  is  fixed  at 
seventy.     In  England  these  pensions  are  paid  out  of 


1 84  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the  Treasury ;  but  in  some  other  countries  they  are 
of  slight  cost  to  the  government,  because  paid  from  a 
pension-fund,  which  is  made  up  in  great  part  by 
the  retention  of  a  certain  percentage  of  the  salary  of 
each  official.  The  British  diplomatic  pensions  are  of 
four  classes— at  $8,500,  $6,500,  $4,500,  and  $3,500 
annually ;  but,  as  there  are  not  very  many  persons 
who  are  on  the  lists,  the  amount  now  being  paid  for 
diplomatic  pensions  is  only  $132,250,  and  for  con-- 
sular  pensions  $145,500. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  utter  inadequacy 
of  the  present  salaries  paid  in  our  diplomatic  service  ; 
but  it  may  be  interesting  to  quote  the  opinions  of 
some  eminent  men,  who  lived  at  a  time  when  ex- 
penses were  less,  and  the  purchasing  power  of  money 
was  greater,  and  who  were  all  above  questions  of  per- 
sonal interest. 

In  a  report  made  to  President  Jackson  in  1833,  by 
Edward  Livingston,  then  Secretary  of  State,  the 
whole  of  which  is  worth  attentive  study,^"  it  is  said  : 

*'  Ministers  are  considered  as  favorites,  selected  to  enjoy 
the  pleasures  of  foreign  travel  at  the  expense  of  the  people  ; 
their  places  as  sinecures  ;  and  their  residence  abroad  as  a 
continued  scene  of  luxurious  enjoyment.  Their  exertions, 
their  embarrassments,  their  laborious  intercourse  with  the 
governments  to  which  they  are  sent,  their  anxious  care  to 
avoid  anything  that  might,  on  the  one  hand,  give  just  cause 
of  offence,  or  to   neglect  or  to    abandon    the  rights    of  their 

*  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  94,  22d  Congress,  2d  Session. 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS.  1 85 

country  or  its  citizens,  on  the  other,  are  all  unknown  at  home. 
Even  the  merit  of  their  correspondence,  from  which,  at  least 
the  reward  of  honor  might  be  derived,  is  hid  in  the  archives 
of  the  Department  and  rarely  sees  the  light ;  and,  except  in 
the  instances  of  a  successful  negotiation  for  claims,  a  minister 
returns  to  his  country,  after  years  of  the  most  laborious  ex- 
ertion of  the  highest  talent,  with  an  injured,  if  not  a  broken 
fortune,  his  countrymen  ignorant  of  his  exertions,  and  under- 
valuing them,  perhaps,  if  known.  On  the  whole,  there  is 
scarcely  an  office,  of  which  the  duties,  properly  performed, 
are  more  arduous,  more  responsible,  and  less  fairly  appre- 
ciated than  that  of  minister  to  a  country  with  which  we  have 
important  commercial  relations.  Yet  there  is  some  reason  to 
believe  that  appointments  to  them  are  sometimes  eagerly 
sought  from  the  same  false  ideas  of  the  nature  of  the  employ- 
ment. To  these  mistaken  ideas,  more  or  less  prevalent,  may 
be  traced  many  of  the  evils  which  have  operated,  and  still 
operate  injuriously  upon  the  interests  and  reputation  of  the 
country.     .     .     . 

''  At  home  the  head  of  every  subordinate  bureau  attached  to 
any  of  the  departments,  has  an  office,  and  a  messenger,  and 
clerks,  and  fire  and  stationery,  and  lights,  and  every  con- 
venience for  carrying  on  the  business  entrusted  to  him.  This 
is  as  it  should  be.  But,  to  represent  the  dignity  of  the  coun- 
try, and  on  a  scanty  salary  to  transact  its  most  important  con- 
cerns abroad,  we  send  a  man  whom  we  provide  with  none  of 
these  necessaries  for  the  transaction  of  his  business  ;  we  force 
him  to  do  all  the  drudgery  of  the  office  with  his  own  hands, 
and  either  to  live  in  some  obscure  place,  where  his  countrymen 
blush  to  find  him  fixed,  when,  after  some  difficulty  they  have 
discovered  his  tavern  residence  ;  or,  at  the  expense  of  his 
own  fortune,  to  provide  what  is  necessary  for  the  interest  and 
dignity  of  the  Government.  The  usual  answer  to  these  repre- 
sentations is  that,  notwithstanding  all  these  inconveniences, 


1 86  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

candidates  are  always  found  eagerly  seeking  these  appoint- 
ments. But  it  must  be  remarked  that  these  candidates  are  of 
two  kinds.  First,  men  of  wealth,  who  are  willing  to  purchase 
the  honor  of  the  station  at  the  expense  of  their  private  for- 
tunes. But  although  these  are  not  always  the  fittest,  in  other 
respects,  for  the  place,  they  are  sometimes  selected,  and  their 
appointment  is  popular,  because  there  seems  to  be  no  objec- 
tion to  a  minister's  keeping  up  a  decent  appearance,  provided 
he  does  it  at  his  own  expense.  Secondly,  there  are  others, 
who  seek  these  appointments,  because  they  make  false  calcu- 
lations on  the  consequences.  They  resolve  to  be  very  eco- 
nomical, to  live  within  their  income,  and  to  be  drawn  into  no 
extravagance.  But,  on  arriving  at  their  place  of  destination, 
they  find  that  expenses  which  might,  with  prudence,  have 
been  avoided  here,  are  inevitable  abroad.  Civilities  are  re- 
ceived which  must  be  returned  ;  strangers  are  introduced  who 
must  be  entertained  ;  their  countrymen  call  on  them,  and 
must  be  treated  hospitably.  In  short,  they  find  themselves 
obliged  to  live  ap*^"*?^rs  do;  or,  to  forego  all  the  advantages 
which  soc5iil?*^intrt9;  '-sa  would  give  them  in  the  business  of 
their  mission.  The  consequence  is,  that  all  our  ministers  re- 
turn with  impaired  fortunes,  however  firm  their  resolutions 
have  been  to  avoid  unnecessary  expense.  It  is  possible  there 
may  be  exceptions  ;  but  they  are  certainly  very  rare.  .  .  . 
If  the  mission  is  useful  it  ought  to  be  supported  at  the  public, 
not  at  private  expense  ;  and  the  representatives  of  a  great 
nation  ought  not  to  be  obliged  to  employ,  in  devising  parsimo- 
nious expedients  for  their  support,  that  time  and  those  talents 
which  ought  to  be  occupied  in  the  service  of  their  country." 

In  a  letter  to  Monroe,  dated  at  Paris,  June  17,  1785, 
Thomas  Jefferson  says : 

"  I  thank  you  for  your  attention  to  my  outfit  ;  for  the  arti- 
cles of  household  furniture,  clothes,  and  carriage,  I  have  al- 


DIPLOMATIC    OFFICIALS,  1 87 

ready  paid  28,000  livres,  and  have  still  more  to  pay.  For  the 
greatest  part  of  this  I  have  been  obliged  to  anticipate  my 
salary ;  from  which,  however,  I  shall  never  be  able  to  repay 
it.  I  find  that  by  a  rigid  economy,  bordering,  however,  on 
meanness,  I  can  save,  perhaps  500  livres  a  month,  at  least  in 
the  summer.  The  residue  goes  for  expenses,  so  much  of  course 
and  of  necessity,  that  I  cannot  avoid  them,  without  abandoning 
all  respect  for  my  public  character.  Yet  I  will  pray  you  to 
touch  this  string,  which  I  know  to  be  a  tender  one  with  Con- 
gress, with  the  utmost  delicacy.  I  had  rather  be  ruined  in  my 
fortune  than  in  their  esteem.  If  they  allow  me  half  a  year's 
salary  as  an  outfit,  I  can  get  through  my  debts  in  time.  If 
they  raise  the  salary  to  what  it  was,  or  even  pay  our  house- 
rent  and  taxes,  I  can  live  with  more  decency." 

Mr.  John  Adams  wrote  to  Mr.  Jay,  in  relation  to 
his  appointment  as  minister  to  England  : 

**  There  is  a  certain  appearance  in  propc"*'-*^  to  rank,  which 
all  the  courts  of  Europe  make  a  serious  po'  pxr  .  .  ag  from 

everybody  who  is  presented  to  them.  I  need  not  say  to  you, 
sir,  because  you  know  it  perfectly,  that  American  ministers 
have  never  yet  been  able  to  make  this  appearance  at  court ; 
they  are  now  less  able  to  do  it  than  ever.  I  lament  this  ne- 
-ifcafeky  of  consuming  the  labor  of  my  fellow-citizens  upon  such 
objects,  as  much  as  any  man  living  ;  but  I  am  sure  that  de- 
basing your  ministers  so  much  below  their  rank  will  one  day 
have  consequences  of  much  more  importance  to  the  husband- 
man, artisan,  and  even  laborer." 

Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  writing  from  London,  in 
181 5,  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  says : 

"  It  is  needless  to  say  to  you,  or  to  any  person  having  been 
in  the  same  capacity  here,  that  the  annual  salary  of  an  Ameri- 


l88  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

can  minister  is  insufficient  to  support  a  man  with  a  family — 
I  say  not  in  the  style  of  high  official  rank,  but  in  the  decency 
becoming  a  private  gentleman." 

Mr.  Monroe,  in  a  letter  to  the  auditor  in  1820, 
says : 

"The  reasons  in  favor  of  an  increase  of  the  salaries  of  our 
ministers  abroad  are  as  strong  as  for  an  increase  of  that  of 
those  at  home,  if  not  much  stronger  ;  and  there  is  one  reason, 
of  great  force,  which  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  the  former. 
The  spirit  of  our  Government,  and  the  manners  of  our  people, 
not  only  authorize,  but  inculcate  economy  at  home  in  the  ex- 
penditure of  our  public  functionaries  ;  but  that  indulgence 
cannot  be  enjoyed  by  those  at  home,  however  consonant  it  may 
be  to  their  habits  and  inclinations,  or  necessary  to  their  cir- 
cumstances." 

Mr.  McLane,  who  had  been  minister  to  Great 
Britain,  said  in  his  Report  as  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, in  1831  : 

"  At  some  foreign  courts,  and  those  whose  relations  to  the 
United  States  are  the  most  important,  the  expenses  incident 
to  the  station  are  found  so  burdensome  as  only  to  be  met  by 
the  private  resources  of  the  minister.  The  tendency  of  this  is 
to  throw  those  high  trusts  altogether  into  the  hands  of  the 
rich,  which  is  certainly  not  according  to  the  genius  of  our 
system." 

Such  quotations  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied. 
The  Report  of  Mr.  Webster,  in  1852,  is  full  of  similar 
statements.*    Since  that  time,  as  has  been  said  before, 

*  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  93,  32d  Congress,  ist  Session. 

r 


DIPLOMATIC   OFFICIALS.  1 89 

the  expenses  of  living,  in  all  the  capitals  of  Europe, 
have  increased  by  from  fifty  to  two  hundred  per 
centum. 

I  allow  myself,  however,  one  further  quotation, 
which  is  both  interesting  and  authoritative,  from  a 
private  letter  of  Mr.  Wheaton  : 

'■'■  The  Austrian  cabinet  is  on  the  point  of  forming  a  new 
commercial  union  with  the  states  of  Northern  and  Central  Italy, 
and  it  should  be  the  duty  of  our  minister  at  Vienna  to  keep 
watch  of  this  movement  and  turn  it  to  our  advantage.  If  Mr. 
Calhoun  could  have  seen  with  his  own  eyes  how  badly  our 
affairs  have  been  managed  for  years  in  the  different  European 
courts,  from  ignorance  of  official  forms  and  of  that  language 
which  is  the  universal  tongue  of  diplomacy,  without  which  a 
diplomatist  might  as  well  be  deaf  and  dumb,  as  well  as  from 
the  lack  of  that  experience  which,  in  our  profession  as  in  every 
other,  gives  a  decided  advantage  to  those  who  possess  it,  he 
would  be  convinced  of  the  importance  of  having  the  principal 
missions^  at  least,  occupied  by  men  who  possess  these  qual- 
ities. At  least  those  who  unite  the  desired  qualities  ought  to 
be  employed  where  they  can  do  most  service,  while  incapable 
men  should  be  turned  out  without  favor  or  partiality.  Those 
who  have  served  the  country  faithfully  and  skilfully  ought  to 
be  encouraged  and  transferred  from  one  court  to  another, 
which  is  the  only  advancement  that  our  system  admits  of.  The 
only  way  of  making  up  for  the  insufficient  salaries  given  under 
our  system  would  be  to  vote  new  outfits,  for  those  who  have 
deserved  them,  whenever  the  interest  of  the  country  would 
justify  and  demand  their  transfer  to  another  post.  Such  is  my 
way  of  looking  at  things  ;  it  is  the  result  of  much  observation 
and  reflection. 

"  I  believe  that  there  is  still  much  to  do  to  advance  our 


igo  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

political  and  commercial  interests  in  Europe,  and  nothing 
vexes  me  more  than  to  hear  an  American  minister  say,  what- 
ever the  court  maybe  to  which  he  is  accredited,  "There  is 
nothing  to  do  here,^^  or  "  Nothing  can  be  done."  I  do  not 
know  a  post,  whether  important  or  not,  which  could  not  offer 
a  zealous,  active,  and  skilful  agent  the  opportunity  of  doing 
something  for  the  interests  of  his  country."* 

*  Wheaton's  Letter  of  May  15,  1836,  Lawrence's  Commentaire,  i,,  83. 


PART   II. 

AMERICAN    DIPLOMATIC    EFFORTS    TO    PRO- 
TECT  COMMERCE   AND   NAVIGATION. 


IV. 
THE   PIRATICAL  BARBARY   POWERS. 

Necessity  of  Protecting  Merchant  Vessels  in  the  Mediterra- 
nean.— Our  Situation  after  the  Revolution. — Application 
to  France. — Mr.  Adams  and  the  Tripoline  Ambassador. — 
Adams  for  Tribute,  Jefferson  for  War. — Treaty  with 
Morocco. — Lamb  at  Algiers. — The  Mathurins. — Effect 
upon  us  of  the  Peace  between  Portugal  and  Algiers. — 
The  American  Captives. — Donaldson's  Treaty  with  Algiers 
in  1795. — Its  Cost. — The  Dey. — Treaty  with  Tripoli. — 
Eaton's  Negotiations  with  Tunis. — War  with  Tripoli. — 
Lear's  Treaty. — War  with  Algiers. — Decatur. — Lord  Ex- 
mouth. — New  Treaty  with  the  United  States  in  18 16. 

So  many  changes  have  taken  place  during  the 
present  century  that  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  realize 
that  only  seventy  years  ago  the  Mediterranean  was 
so  unsafe  that  the  merchant  ships  of  every  nation 
stood  in  danger  of  capture  by  pirates,  unless  they 
were  protected  either  by  an  armed  convoy  or  by 
tribute  paid  to  the  petty  Barbary  powers.  Yet  we 
can  scarcely  open  a  book  of  travels  during  the  last 
century  without  mention  being  made  of  the  immense 
risks  to  which  every  one  was  exposed  who  ventured 
by  sea  from  Marseilles  to  Naples.  The  French 
13 


1 94  AMERICA  N  DIPL  OMA  C  V. 

dramatist  Regnard  was  captured  on  an  English  ship 
going  from  Civita  Vecchia  to  Toulon,  and  served  for 
a  time  as  a  slave  in  Algiers  at  the  end  of  the  seven- 
teenth century ;  and  Jacob  Leisler,  who  played  such 
an  important  part  in  the  early  colonial  history  of 
New  York,  suffered  the  same  fate  before  his  arrival 
in  this  country.  To  go  much  further  back,  the  great 
Cervantes  was  a  slave  in  Algiers  during  four  years. 
We  all  remember  how  Goethe  in  his  Italian  journey 
waited  a  long  time  at  Naples  for  the  corvette  which 
made  the  fortnightly  passage  between  that  place  and 
Palermo,  and  how  afterward  at  Palermo  he  tells  us 
of  seeing  the  Prince  Pallagonia  walking  through  the 
streets  with  his  footman,  taking  up  contributions 
for  the  purpose  of  ransoming  captives  in  Barbary. 
"  This  collection  never  produces  much,"  he  says,  "but 
the  subject  remains  in  men's  memories ;  and  those 
who  have  held  back  during  their  lifetime  often  leave 
large  sums  for  this  purpose  at  their  death." 

The  European  states,  in  order  to  protect  their  com- 
merce, had  the  choice  either  of  paying  certain  sums 
per  head  for  each  captive,  which  in  reality  was  a 
premium  on  capture,  or  of  buying  entire  freedom  for 
their  commerce  by  the  expenditure  of  large  sums 
yearly.  The  treaty  renewed  by  France,  in  1788,  with 
Algiers,  was  for  fifty  years,  and  it  was  agreed  to  pay 
$2CX),ooo  annually,  besides  large  presents  distributed 
according  to  custom  every  ten  years,  and  a  great  sum 


THE  PIRATICAL  BARBARY  POWERS.  1 95 

given  down.^  The  peace  of  Spain  with  Algiers  is  said 
to  have  cost  from  three  to  five  millions  of  dollars. 
There  is  reason  to  believe  that  at  the  same  time 
England  was  paying  an  annual  tribute  of  about  $280,- 
000.  England  was  the  only  power  suf^ciently  strong 
on  the  sea  to  put  down  these  pirates ;  but  in  order  to 
keep  her  own  position  as  mistress  of  the  seas  she  pre- 
ferred to  leave  them  in  existence  in  order  to  be  a 
scourge  to  the  commerce  of  other  European  powers, 
and  even  to  support  them  by  paying  a  sum  so  great 
that  other  states  might  find  it  difficult  to  make  peace 
with  them. 

When  the  Revolution  broke  out  we  no  longer  had 
the  safeguards  for  our  commerce  that  had  been  given 
to  us  by  England,  and  it  was  therefore  that  in  our 
very  first  negotiations  for  a  treaty  with  France  we  de- 
sired to  have  an  article  inserted  into  the  treaty  that 
the  King  of  France  should  secure  the  inhabitants  of 
the  United  States,  and  their  vessels  and  effects,  against 
all  attacks  or  depredations  from  any  of  the  Barbary 
powers.t  It  was  found  impossible  to  insert  this 
article  in  the  treaty  of  J 778,  and  instead  of  that  the 
king  agreed  to  "  employ  his  good  offices  and  interpo- 
sition in  order  to  provide  as  fully  and  efficaciously  as 
possible  for  the  benefit,  conveniency,  and  safety  of  the 

*  Report  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  December  28,  1790,  State  Papers, 
x.,45. 

f  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,  ii.,  10,  28. 


ig6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

United  States  against  the  princes  and  the  states  of 
Barbary  or  their  subjects."  ^ 

According  to  a  report  made  in  1 790  by  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, when  Secretary  of  State,  "  before  the  War  of  In- 
dependence, about  one-sixth  of  the  wheat  and  flour 
exported  from  the  United  States,  and  about  one- 
fourth  in  value  of  their  dried  and  pickled  fish,  and 
some  rice,  found  their  best  markets  in  the  Mediterra- 
nean ports."  There  were  then  employed  in  the  trade 
about  twenty  thousand  tons  of  navigation  and  twelve 
thousand  seamen.t  Owing  to  the  Revolution  this 
trade  ceased  for  some  time  entirely ;  but  after  we  had 
gained  the  right  to  fish  on  the  Banks,  our  merchant 
vessels  began  again  to  go  to  the  Mediterranean,  and 
the  trade  revived.  This  could  not  but  be  noticed 
by  the  Barbary  rulers,  who  saw  a  strange  flag,  hitherto 
unknown,  and  which  certainly  had  paid  no  tribute^  to 
them,  coming  gradually  into  the  Mediterranean.^  In 
July,  1785,  the  schooner  Maria  was  taken,  off  Cape 
St.  Vincent,  by  an  Algerine  corsair,  and  five  days 
afterward  the  ship  Dauphin  was  taken  by  another 
Algerine,  fifty  leagues  westward  of  Lisbon.  The  offi- 
cers and  crews,  twenty-one  persons  in  number,  were 
reduced  to  slavery,  although  the  captains  were  far 
better  treated  than  the  men.§      One  vessel,  the  brig 

*  Treaty  of  1778,  Article  VIII.  f  State  Papers,  x.,  42. 

X  Lyman's  Diplomacy  of  the  United  States,  ii.,  339,  340. 
%  State  Papers,  x.,  56. 


THE  FIR  A  TIC  A  L  BA  RBA  RY  FO  WERS.  1 9/ 

Betsy,  had  indeed  been  captured  the  year  before 
and  carried  into  Tangier,  but  the  crew  had  been  liber- 
ated through  the  good  offices  of  the  Spanish  court.* 
In  concluding  his  report  Mr.  Jefferson  said  : 

*'  It  rests  with  Congress  to  decide  between  war,  tribute,  and 
ransom,  as  the  means  of  re-establishing  our  Mediterranean 
commerce." 

Already,  In  May,  1784,  Congress  had  authorized  a 
commission  to  be  issued  to  Mr.  Adams,  Dr.  Franklin, 
and  Mr.  Jefferson,  empowering  them  either  directly 
or  through  commissioners  to  treat  with  the  Barbary 
powers.  In  March,  1785,  these  commissioners  applied 
to  the  French  minister.  Count  de  Vergennes,  asking 
his  advice  about  the  conduct  of  negotiations,  and  re- 
questing the  good  offices  of  Louis  XVI.  to  be  inter- 
posed with  the  Emperor  of  Morocco.  After  Franklin 
had  returned  to  America,  in  July,  1785,  Adams  and 
Jefferson,  finding  their  hands  full  with  European  ne- 
gotiations, appointed  Thomas  Barclay  to  negotiate 
with  Morocco,  and  John  Lamb  to  negotiate  with 
Algiers.  A  few  months  afterward  Jefferson  was  per- 
suaded to  go  to  London  and  meet  Abdurrahman,  the 
Tripolitan  ambassador,  with  whom  Mr.  Adams  had 
already  had  some  discussion.  Mr.  Adams'  account  of 
these  preliminary  conferences  is  amusing.  He  writes 
to  Mr.  Jay ; 


*  Jeflferson's  Works. 

ff^'       or  r.vf 

[(  UNIVERSITl 


198  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

"  At  a  late  levee  the  king,  in  conversation  with  one  of  the 
foreign  ministers,  was  pleased  to  say  '  that  the  Tripoline 
ambassador  refused  to  confer  with  his  ministers,  and  insisted 
on  an  audience  ;  but  that  nothing  had  been  said  at  it  more 
than  that  Tripoli  and  England  were  at  peace,  and  desirous  to 
continue  so.'  His  Majesty  added,  *  All  he  wants  is  a  present, 
and  his  expenses  borne  to  Vienna  and  Denmark.' 

"  If  nothing  more  was  said  at  the  audience,  there  are  not 
wanting  persons  in  England  who  will  find  means  to  stimulate 
this  African  to  stir  up  his  countrymen  against  American  ves- 
sels. It  may  reasonably  be  suspected  that  his  present  visit 
is  chiefly  with  a  view  to  the  United  States,  to  draw  them  into 
a  treaty  of  peace,  which  implies  tribute,  or  at  least  presents  ; 
or  to  obtain  aids  from  England  to  carry  on  a  war  against  us. 
Feeling  his  appearance  here  to  be  ominous,  like  that  of  other 
irregular  bodies,  which,  *  from  their  hair  shake  pestilence  and 
war  '  I  thought  at  first  to  avoid  him  ;  but,  finding  that  all  the 
other  foreign  ministers  had  made  their  visits,  and  that  he  would 
take  amiss  a  longer  inattention,  it  was  judged  necessary  to 
call  at  his  door  for  the  form  ;  but,  when  the  attempt  was  made, 
which  was  last  evening,  so  late  that  there  was  no  suspicion  of 
his  being  visible,  the  ambassador  was  announced  at  home,  and 
ready  to  receive  the  visitant.  It  would  scarcely  be  reconcil- 
able to  the  dignity  of  Congress  to  read  a  detail  of  the  cere- 
monies which  attended  the  conference  ;  it  would  be  more 
proper  to  write  them  to  harlequin,  for  the  amusement  of  the 
gay  at  the  New  York  theatre. 

"  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  his  Excellency  made  many  in- 
quiries concerning  America,  the  climate,  soil,  heat,  cold,  etc., 
and  observed,  '  It  is  a  very  great  country,  but  Tripoli  is  at  war 
with  it.^  In  return,  it  was  asked  how  there  could  be  war 
between  two  nations  when  there  had  been  no  hostility,  injury, 
insult,  or  provocation  on  either  side.  His  Excellency  replied 
*  That  Turkey,  Tripoli,  Tunis,  Algiers,  and  Morocco  were  the 


THE  PIRATICAL  BARBARY  POWERS.  I99 

sovereigns  of  the  Mediterranean  ;  and  that  no  nation  could 
navigate  that  sea  without  a  treaty  of  peace  with  them.'  * 

"  It  was  the  delight  of  his  soul,  and  the  whole  pleasure  of 
his  life  to  do  good  ;  and  he  was  zealous  to  embrace  an  oppor- 
tunity, which  now  presented  itself,  of  doing  a  great  deal.  The 
time  was  critical,  and  the  sooner  peace  was  made  the  better ; 
for,  from  what  passed  before  he  left  home,  he  was  convinced 
if  the  treaty  should  be  delayed  anoth^  year,  it  would,  after 
that,  be  very  difficult  to  make  it.  If  any  considerable  number 
of  vessels  and  prisoners  should  be  taken,  it  would  be  hard  to 
persuade  the  Turks,  especially  the  Algerines,  to  desist.  A  war 
between  Christian  and  Christian  was  mild,  and  prisoners,  on 
either  side,  were  treated  with  humanity  ;  but  a  war  between 
Turk  and  Christian  was  horrible,  and  prisoners  were  sold  into 
slavery.  Although  he  was  himself  a  Mussulman,  he  must  still 
say  he  thought  it  a  very  rigid  law  ;  but,  as  he  could  not  alter 
it,  he  was  desirous  of  preventing  its  operation,  or,  at  least,  of 
softening  it,  as  far  as  his  influence  extended.  .  .  .  He 
*  called  God  to  witness,'  that  is  to  say,  he  swore  by  his  beard, 
which  is  a  sacred  oath  with  them,  *  that  his  motive  to  this 
earnestness  for  peace,  although  it  might  be  of  some  benefit  to 
himself,  was  the  desire  of  doing  good.'     .     .     . 

"This  man  is  either  a  consummate  politician  in  art  and 
address,  or  he  is  a  benevolent  and  wise  man.  Time  will  dis- 
cover whether  he  disguises  an  interested  character,  or  is  in- 
deed the  philosopher  he  pretends  to  be.  If  he  is  the  latter, 
Providence  seems  to  have  opened  to  us  an  opportunity  of  con- 
ducting this  thorny  business  to  a  happy  conclusion."  f 

Adams  and  Jefferson  found  the  terms  too  exorbi- 
tant. The  ambassador  demanded  as  the  lowest  price 
for  a  perpetual  peace  30,000  guineas  for  his  employers 

*  February  17,  1786,  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  viii., 
372.  f  John  Adams'  Works,  viii.,  373. 


200  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  ;^3,ooo  for  himself ;  that  Tunis  would  probably 
treat  on  the  same  terms ;  but  he  could  not  answer  for 
Algiers  or  Morocco.  Peace  with  all  four  powers 
would  cost  at  least  $1,000,000,  and  Congress  had  ap- 
propriated only  $80,000. 

That  their  minds  were  full  of  this  subject  may  be 
seen  from  the  constant  references  to  it  in  their  corre- 
spondence. At  one  time  there  was  a  rumor  that  Dr. 
Franklin  had  been  captured  on  his  way  home,  and 
taken  to  Algiers,  and  "  that  he  bore  his  slavery  to  ad- 
miration." * 

Mr.  Adams  was  strongly  opposed  to  war,  on  ac- 
count of  the  expense,  and  preferred  the  payment  of 
tribute.  I 

"As  long  as  France,  England,  Holland,  the  Emperor,  etc., 
will  submit  to  be  tributary  to  these  robbers,  and  even  en- 
courage them,  to  what  purpose  should  we  make  war  upon 
them  ?  The  resolution  might  be  heroic,  but  would  not  be 
wise.  The  contest  would  be  unequal.  They  can  injure  us 
very  sensibly,  but  we  cannot  hurt  them  in  the  smallest  de- 
gree. .  .  .  If  we  could  even  send  a  force  sufficient  to  burn 
a  town,  their  unfeeling  governors  would  only  insult  and  de- 
ride, .  .  .  and  think  no  more  of  it  than  if  we  had  killed  so 
many  caterpillars  upon  an  apple-tree.  .  .  .  Unless  it  were 
possible,  then,  to  persuade  the  great  maritime  powers  of  Eu- 
rope to  unite  in  the  suppression  of  these  piracies,  it  would  be 
very  imprudent  for  us  to  entertain  any  thoughts  of  contending 
with  them,  and  will  only  lay  a  foundation,  by  irritating  their 

*  Jefferson's  Works,  i.,  449  ;  Jefferson  to  Franklin,  October  5,  1785. 


THE  riRA  TIC  A  L  BARB  A  RY  PO  WERS.  20 1 

passions  and  increasing  their  insolence  and  their  demands, 
for  long  and  severe  repentance."  * 

Mr.  Adams  believed  that  war  would  be  greatly 
more  expensive  than  tribute, 

**  And  when  you  leave  off  fighting,  you  must  pay  as  much 
money  as  it  would  cost  you  now  for  peace.  We  ought  not  to 
fight  them  at  all,  unless  we  determine  to  fight  them  forever. 
The  thought,  I  fear,  is  too  rugged  for  our  people  to  bear.  To 
fight  them  at  the  expense  of  millions,  and  make  peace,  after 
all,  by  giving  more  money  and  larger  presents  than  would 
now  procure  perpetual  peace  seems  not  to  be  economical."  f 

Mr.  Jefferson  quite  as  decidedly  preferred  war. 
He  wrote  to  Mr.  Adams  : 

**  I.  Justice  is  in  favor  of  this  opinion.  2.  Honor  favors 
it.  3.  It  will  procure  us  respect  in  Europe  ;  and  respect  is  a 
safeguard  to  interest.  4.  It  will  arm  the  federal  head  with 
the  safest  of  all  the  instruments  of  coercion  over  its  delinquent 
members.  5.  I  think  it  least  expensive.  6.  Equally  effect- 
ual." t 

He  thought,  too,  that  America  would  not  have  to 
fight  alone,  but  would  be  joined  by  Naples  and  Por- 
tugal, if  not  by  other  powers. 

"  You  will  probably  find  the  tribute  to  all  these  powers 
make  such  a  proportion  of  the  federal  taxes  as  that  every  man 
will  feel  them  sensibly  when  he  pays  those  taxes.     The  ques- 

*  Adams  to  Jay,  December  15,  1784,  Adams'  Works,  viii.,  218. 
t  Adams  to  Jefferson,  June  6  and  July  3,  1786  ;  July  31,  1786,  Adams' 
Works,  viii.,  400,  406,  411. 

X  Jefferson  to  Adams,  July  11,  1786,  Jefferson's  Works,  i.,  591. 


202  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

tion  is,  whether  their  peace  or  war  will  be  cheapest  ?  But  it 
is  a  question  which  should  be  addressed  to  our  honor  as  well  as 
our  avarice.  Nor  does  it  respect  us  as  to  these  pirates  only, 
but  as  to  the  nations  of  Europe.  If  we  wish  our  commerce  to 
be  free  and  uninsulted,  we  must  let  these  nations  see  that  we 
have  an  energy  which  at  present  they  disbelieve.  The  low 
opinion  they  entertain  of  our  powers  cannot  fail  to  involve  us 
soon  in  a  naval  war."  * 

Similar  remarks  are  found  in  other  letters.  Jef- 
ferson fortified  himself  with  the  opinion  of  Count 
d'Estaing  as  to  the  means  to  be  employed.  He 
thought  a  perpetual  blockade  the  best.  The  expe- 
rience of  Massiac  had  shown  this  to  be  effectual. 
"  Bombardments,"  said  d'Estaing,  "are  but  transitory. 
It  is,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  like  breaking  glass 
windows  with  guineas."  t 

"  I  was  very  unwilling,"  says  Jefferson,  in  his  Autobiog- 
raphy, ''  that  we  should  acquiesce  in  the  European  humilia- 
tion of  paying  a  tribute  to  those  lawless  pirates,  and  endeavored 
to  form  an  association  of  the  powers  subject  to  habitual  depre- 
dations from  them.  I  accordingly  prepared,  and  proposed  to 
their  ministers  at  Paris,  for  consultation  with  their  govern- 
ments, articles  of  a  special  confederation.  .  .  .  Spain  had 
just  concluded  a  treaty  with  Algiers,  at  the  expense  of  three 
millions  of  dollars,  and  did  not  like  to  relinquish  the  benefit  of 
that  until  the  other  party  should  fail  in  their  observance  of  it. 
Portugal,  Naples,  the  Two  Sicilies,  Venice,  Malta,  Denmark, 
and  Sweden,  were  favorably  disposed  to  such  an  association  ; 
but  their  representatives  at   Paris   expressed  apprehensions 

*  Jefferson  to  John  Page,  August  20,  1785,  Jefferson's  Works,  i. ,  401. 
t  Count  d'Estaing  to  Jefferson,  May  17,  1784,  conf.  State  Papers,  x.,  54. 


THE  PIRATICAL  BARBARY  POWERS.  203 

that  France  would  interfere,  and,  either  openly  or  secretly, 
support  the  Barbary  powers  ;  and  they  required  that  I  should 
ascertain  the  dispositions  of  the  Count  de  Vergennes  on  the 
subject.  I  had  therefore  taken  occasion  to  inform  him  of 
what  we  were  proposing,  and,  therefore,  did  not  think  it 
proper  to  insinuate  any  doubt  of  the  fair  conduct  of  his  gov- 
ernment ;  but  stating  our  propositions,  I  mentioned  the  appre- 
hensions entertained  by  us,  that  England  would  interfere  in 
behalf  of  those  piratical  governments.  '  She  dares  not  do  it,' 
said  he.  I  pressed  it  no  further.  The  other  agents  were 
satisfied  with  this  indication  of  his  sentiments,  and  nothing 
was  now  wanting  to  bring  it  into  direct  and  formal  considera- 
tion but  the  assent  of  our  Government,  and  their  authority  to 
make  a  formal  proposition.  I  communicated  to  them  the 
favorable  prospect  of  protecting  our  commerce  from  the  Bar- 
bary depredations,  and  for  such  a  continuance  of  time,  as, 
by  an  exclusion  of  them  from  the  sea,  to  change  their  habits 
and  characters  from  a  predatory  to  an  agricultural  people  ; 
toward  which,  however,  it  was  expected  they  would  contribute 
a  frigate  and  its  expenses,  to  be  in  constant  cruise.  But  they 
were  in  no  condition  to  make  any  such  engagement.  Their 
recommendatory  powers  for  obtaining  contributions  were  so 
openly  neglected  by  the  several  states,  that  they  declined  an 
engagement  which  they  were  conscious  they  could  not  fulfil 
with  punctuality ;  and  so  it  fell  through."  * 

Every  other   method  having   failed,  Barclay   pro- 
ceeded to  Morocco,  and  Lamb  to  Algiers. 

'  Barclay  concluded  a  treaty  with  the  Emperor  of 
Morocco  on  July  16,  1787,  without  particular  diffi- 
culty. This  was,  I  believe,  the  first  treaty  made  with 
any  power  in  which  neither  tribute  nor  presents  were 

*  Jefferson's  Works,  i.,  65-67. 


204  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

stipulated  ;  although  without  a  naval  force  it  was 
naturally  impossible  to  secure  its  accurate  observance 
except  by  occasional  presents.  The  treaty  was  con- 
cluded for  fifty  years.  Soon  afterward  the  Emperor 
died,  and  it  was  necessary  to  have  it  recognized  by 
his  successor.  Twenty  thousand  dollars  were  appro- 
priated for  this  purpose,  which  were  distributed  in 
presents,  and  in  1 795  a  formal  ratification  of  the  treaty 
was  made.  In  1802  there  were  some  slight  diffi- 
culties, and  the  consul  was  ordered  to  leave  Tangier 
because  the  United  States  had  not  sent  presents 
and  had  refused  a  convoy  to  some  Moorish  vessels. 
When  the  consul  informed  the  Emperor  that  the 
President  had  ordered  a  hundred  gun-carriages  to  be 
made  and  sent  to  him  as  a  present,  he  was  allowed 
to  remain.  In  1803  a  Moorish  corsair  captured  the 
American  brig  Celia,  but  this  was  soon  recaptured  by 
the  frigate  Philadelphia,  and  the  act  was  disavowed 
by  the  Moorish  authorities.  When  hostile  demon- 
strations were  threatened  in  consequence  of  this 
breach  of  the  treaty,  the  Emperor  proclaimed  that 
"the  American  nation  are  still,  as  they  were,  in 
peace  and  friendship  with  our  person,  exalted  of 
God."  At  the  expiration  of  the  forty-ninth  year 
the  treaty  of  1787  was  renewed  for  another  fifty 
years.  Our  only  other  treaty  with  Morocco  was  a 
convention,  into  which,  with  most  of  the  European 
powers,  we  entered  in  1865,  for  the  maintaining  of  a 


THE  PIRA  TIC  A  L  BA  RBA  RY  PO  VVERS.  20$ 

lighthouse  off  Cape  Spartel,  for  which  the  sum  of 
$325  is  now  paid  annually. 

Lamb,  however,  entirely  failed  in  his  negotiations 
at  Algiers.  He  had  been  sent  thither  by  Jefferson 
and  Adams,  with  many  misgivings ;  but  he  had 
brought  recommendations  from  Congress,  had  "fol- 
lowed for  many  years  the  Barbary  trade,  and  seemed 
intimately  acquainted  with  those  states."  They  did 
not  feel  sure  either  of  his  abilities  or  of  his  integrity ; 
they  sent  a  Mr.  Randall  with  him  as  clerk  to  "attend 
to  his  proceedings,"  and  give  information  if  he  saw 
anything  going  amiss.  When  afterward,  under  the 
pretext  of  ill  health.  Lamb  declined  to  return  either 
to  Congress,  to  Mr.  Adams  or  to  Mr.  Jefferson,  they 
feared  some  malversation.  "  I  am  persuaded  that  an 
angel  sent  on  this  business,"  says  Mr.  Jefferson,  "  and 
so  much  limited  in  his  terms,  could  have  done  noth- 
ing. But  should  Congress  propose  to  try  the  line  of 
negotiation  again,  I  think  they  will  perceive  that 
Lamb  is  not  a  proper  agent."*  Richard  O'Brien, 
one  of  the  captured  sea-captains,  wrote  to  Mr.  Car- 
michael,  our  charg^  d'affaires  at  Madrid,  on  June  24, 
1790, 

"  That  Mr.  Lamb  could  speak  nothing  but  English  ;  that  the 
French  consul  and  Conde  d'Espilly,  the  Spanish  ambassador, 
would  not  take  the  trouble  to  explain  Mr.  Lamb's  propositions, 
as  the  terms  of  the  peace  would  be  advantageous  to  the  Alge- 

*  Jefferson's  Works,  i.,  438,  605. 


206  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

lines  ;  and  that  the  French  and  Spaniards  advised  Mr.  Lamb 
to  return  to  America,  that  the  Algerines  would  not  make 
peace  with  the  United  States  of  America,"  * 

Subsequently  the  Vekil  Hadji  said  to  Mr.  O'Brien 
that 

'*  He  hoped,  if  the  Americans  sent  an  American  to  Algiers  to 
make  the  peace,  they  would  send  a  man  who  could  speak  the 
Spanish  or  Italian  language.  He  ridiculed  much  the  sending 
a  man  that  no  one  could  understand  what  he  had  to  say."  f 

About  O'Brien  himself,  John  Quincy  Adams  wrote, 
thirty  years  later : 

"  0*Brien  is  an  old  Irishman,  who  was  once  consul-gen- 
eral at  Algiers,  chiefly  because  he  had  been  nine  or  ten  years 
a  slave  there.  He  was  a  master  of  a  vessel,  and  is  an  exact 
copy  of  Smollett's  novel  sailors.  His  discourse  is  patched  up 
entirely  of  sea  phrases,  and  he  prides  himself  upon  nothing  so 
much  as  his  language.  "  % 

The  Dey,  however,  received  Mr.  Lamb  and  his 
secretary,  Mr  Randall,  politely,  and  even  informed 
them  that  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  exploits 
of  General  Washington,  for  whom  he  felt  great  admi- 
ration ;  but  as  he  never  expected  to  see  him,  he 
hoped  that  Congress  would  do  him  the  favor  to  send 
him  a  full-length  portrait,  that  he  might  hang  it  up  in 
his  palace.  The  feeling  of  regard  for  General  Wash- 
ington did  not,  however,  diminish  the  prices  of  the 
captives,  which,  according  to  Mr.  Lamb,  were  $6,000 

*  I  Foreign  Relations,  folio  ed.,  117.  f  Ibid, 

t  J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  iv.,  403. 


THE  PIRA  TIC  A  L  BA  RBA  RY  TO  WERS.  20/ 

each  for  three  captains,  $4,000  for  the  mates  and  pas- 
sengers, and  $1,400  for  each  of  the  seamen,  besides  a 
customary  duty  of  eleven  per  cent,  on  the  whole 
amount.  This  made  about  $2,800  a  captive,  while 
the  agents  had  authority  to  offer  only  $200.  The 
last  captives  redeemed  by  the  French  had  cost  $300 
a  man,  which,  with  the  expenses,  had  amounted  to 
about  $500. 

There  existed  at  this  time  a  religious  order  in  Paris 
called  properly  the  Society  of  the  Holy  Trinity  for 
the  Redemption  of  Captives — more  commonly  Ma- 
thurins  from  the  church  of  St.  Mathurin  at  Paris, 
which  belonged  to  them — or  Brothers  of  the  Redemp- 
tion. They  were  instituted  in  1 199  by  two  religious 
men  for  ransoming  Christians  captured  by  the  infidels. 
Recourse  was  now  had  to  this  charitable  order  by  Mr. 
Jefferson,  and  the  general  of  the  Mathurins  gladly 
gave  his  services.  But  he  required  that  the  utmost 
secrecy  should  be  observed  ;  for  if  it  were  known  that 
they  were  buying  the  slaves  of  other  nations  the 
price  of  their  own  countrymen  would  be  raised.  He 
required,  also,  that  the  allowances  for  the  support  of 
the  captives,  larger  than  those  given  by  other  nations, 
which  it  was  believed  came  from  public  sources, 
should  be  stopped,  as  no  Americans  had  ever  been 
captured  before.  It  was  best  to  impress  upon  the  Dey 
that  they  were  supported  solely  by  charity;  and  it 
was  important  to   keep  the  price  low,  even  should 


208  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

they  remain  longer  in  imprisonment,  lest  the  Alge- 
rines  should  pursue  the  Americans  with  greater  eager- 
ness and  future  captives  have  to  pay  a  higher  price. 
In  1789  a  sum  of  money  was  deposited  with  the 
Mathurins,  and  the  general  immediately  began  bar- 
gaining. But,  unfortunately,  the  price  of  captives 
had  not  much  fallen.  In  July,  1790,  only  one  had 
been  ransomed,  while  six  had  died.  The  Revolution 
then  put  a  stop  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Mathurins, 
by  the  abolition  of  all  religious  orders.  As  there  was 
no  question  of  obtaining  their  liberation  by  force,  for 
the  sake  of  saving  a  few  thousand  dollars,  fourteen 
men  were  allowed  to  remain  in  imprisonment  for  ten 
years. 

In  1792,  on  the  proposition  of  General  Washington, 
the  Senate  agreed  to  conclude  a  treaty  with  Algiers, 
provided  that  it  should  not  cost  more  than  $40,000,  as 
a  ransom  for  the  thirteen  Americans — $25,000  as  a 
present  to  the  Dey  on  its  signature,  and  $25,000  more 
annually.  The  negotiations  were  entrusted  to  Admiral 
Paul  Jones,  and  were  considered  so  confidential  and 
secret  that  all  the  papers  were  made  out  in  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son's own  handwriting.  There  seems  to  have  been  a 
suspicion  that  there  might  be  some  opposition  at 
Algiers  on  the  part  of  other  powers,  for  it  was  known 
that  a  Mr.  Simpson,  of  Gibraltar,  by  the  direction  of 
the  Messrs.  Bulkley  of  Lisbon,  had  offered  a  contract 
to  the  Dey  to  redeem  all  the  American  captives  for 


THE  PIRA  TIC  A  L  BA  RBA  RY  PO  WERS.  209 

$34,792.  It  was  not  known  who  the  parties  to  this 
contract  were ;  it  was,  indeed,  never  carried  out,  and 
Jones  was  instructed  to  deny  all  knowledge  of  it.* 

Jones  unfortunately  died  at  this  time,  and  Barclay, 
who  succeeded  him,  also  died  in  Lisbon.  There  was 
therefore  some  delay  before  Colonel  David  Hum- 
phreys, the  American  minister  at  Lisbon,  was  ap- 
pointed plenipotentiary.  Eight  hundred  thousand 
dollars  were  placed  at  his  disposal.  Humphreys  never 
went  directly  to  Algiers ;  but  while  in  the  south  of 
Spain,  endeavoring  to  get  across  to  the  Barbary  coast, 
received  the  unwelcome,  but  not  entirely  unlooked  for, 
news  that  the  Portuguese  had  made  a  twelvemonth's 
truce  with  Algiers.  The  Portuguese  squadron,  there- 
fore, which  had  guarded  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar,  was 
withdrawn,  and  that  allowed  the  Algerine  fleet  to  get 
out  into  the  Atlantic.  The  immediate  result  of  this 
was  that  in  a  single  cruise  ten  of  our  vessels  were  cap- 
tured, and  in  November,  1793,  the  number  of  prison- 
ers at  Algiers  amounted  to  one  hundred  and  fifteen 
men,  among  whom  there  remained  only  ten  of  the 
original  captives  of  1785. 

The  Portuguese  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  as- 
sured Mr.  Church,  our  consul  at  Lisbon,  that  the 
truce 

'*  Was  as  unexpected  to  the  court  of  Portugal  as  it  could  be 
to  us,  and  if  it  was  not  quite  so  unwelcome,  yet  it  was  by  no 

*Conf.  State  Papers,  x.,  261-8. 


2IO  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

means  agreeable  to  their  court,  who  never  intended  to  condude 
either  a  peace  or  truce  with  the  Dey,  without  giving  timely 
notice  to  all  their  friends,  that  they  might  avoid  the  dangers 
to  which  they  might  otherwise  be  exposed  by  trusting  to  the 
protection  of  the  Portuguese  ships  of  war  stationed  in  the 
Mediterranean." 

Portugal  had  indeed  expressed  to  England  and 
Spain  a  desire  for  their  co-operation  in  obtaining  a 
lasting  peace,  and  the  English  consul  at  Algiers  had 
therefore,  not  only  without  authority,  but  without 
even  consulting  the  Portuguese  government,  concluded 
this  truce  in  behalf  of  Portugal.  England  guaranteed 
that  Portugal  should  pay  a  tribute  equal  to  one-third 
of  that  paid  by  Spain,  although  the  Portuguese  had 
refused  to  pay  one  farthing. 

"  The  conduct  of  the  British  in  this  business  leaves  no  room 
to  doubt  or  mistake  their  object,  which  was  evidently  aimed 
at  us,  and  proves  that  this  envy,  jealousy,  and  hatred  will  never 
be  appeased,  and  that  they  will  leave  nothing  unattempted  to 
effect  our  ruin.  As  a  further  confirmation  it  is  worthy  of  re- 
mark that  the  same  British  agent  obtained  a  truce  at  the 
same  time  between  the  states  of  Holland  and  the  Dey,  for  six 
months,  whereby  we  and  the  Hanse  towns  are  now  left  the  only 
prey  to  those  barbarians."* 

On  Mr.  Church's  representations  the  Portuguese 
arranged  to  give  our  merchant  vessels  the  convoy  of 
their  ships  of  war  whenever  practicable.     There  were 

*  Church  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  October  12,  1793,  conf. 
State  Papers,  x.,  279. 


THE  FIR  A  TIC  A  L  BA  KB  A  RY  PO  WERS,  2 1  I 

then  sixteen  American  and  thirty  Hanseatic  vessels 
in  the  port  of  Lisbon. 

Mr.  Thomas  Pinckney,  the  American  minister  at 
London,  had  a  conversation  on  this  subject  with  Lord 
Grenville,  who  assured  him  that  England 

**  Had  not  the  least  intention  or  thought  of  injuring  us  ;  that 
they  conceived  they  had  done  no  more  than  their  friendship 
for  a  good  ally  required  of  them  ;  but  that  the  measure  was 
also  particularly  advantageous  to  themselves,  as  they  wanted 
the  co-operation  of  the  Portuguese  fleet  to  act  against  their 
common  enemy,  which  it  was  at  liberty  to  do  when  no  longer 
employed  in  blocking  up  the  Algerine  fleet." 

He  assured  him  that  no  opposition  would  be  made 
to  the  Portuguese  convoy  to  vessels  already  liftheir 
harbors.* 

Meanwhile  the  captives  were  sending  home  peti- 
tions to  Congress  begging  that  something  should  be 
done  for  them  ;  and  Captain  O'Brien,  in  a  remarkable 
letter  to  the  President,  considered  that  the  only  ef- 
fectual means  that  could  be  employed  were  a  fleet  of 
thirty  ships.t     Colonel  Humphreys  wrote  : 

"If  we  mean  to  have  a  commerce,  we  must  have  a  naval 
force,  to  a  certain  extent,  to  defend  it.  Besides,  the  very 
semblance  of  this  would  tend  more  toward  enabling  iis  to 
maintain  our  neutrality  in  the  actual  critical  state  of  our  af- 
fairs in  Europe  than  all  the  declarations,  reasonings,  conces- 
sions, and  sacrifices  that  can  possibly  be  made."  J 

*  Conf.  State  Papers,  x.,  305. 
t  Ibid.,  325.  nbid.,328. 


212  .  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Congress  began  at  last  to  see  affairs  from  the  same 
point  of  view,  and  on  January  2,  1794,  the  House  of 
Representatives  resolved  that  a  "  naval  force  adequate 
for  the  protection  of  the  commerce  of  the  United 
States  against  the  Algerine  forces  ought  to  be  pro- 
vided." In  the  same  year  authority  was  given  to 
build  six  frigates,  and  to  procure  ten  smaller  vessels 
to  be  equipped  as  galleys. 

Negotiations,  however,  continued  to  go  on.  Pierre 
Eric  Skjoldebrand,  the  brother  of  the  Swedish  consul 
at  Algiers,  having  become  interested  in  the  fate  of  the 
Americans,  gave  some  advice  and  offered  his  assistance 
to  our  Government.  He  wrote  that  the  European 
jealousies  at  Algiers  were  so  great  that  it  was  diflficult 
for  any  nation  to  obtain  a  peace ;  and  that  the  Dey 
wars  averse  to  making  peace  at  any  price, 

*'  Because,"  said  he,  "  if  I  were  to  make  peace  with  everybody, 
what  should  I  do  with  my  corsairs  ?  What  should  I  do  with 
my  soldiers  ?  They  would  take  off  my  head  for  the  want  of 
other  prizes,  not  being  able  to  live  upon  their  miserable  allow- 
ance." 

But  Skjoldebrand  thought  that  by  the  payment  of 
a  sufficient  amount  of  money  in  ways  which  he  speci- 
fied, together  with  an  annual  tribute  and  occasional 
presents,  peace  might  be  obtained.* 

In  March,  1795,  Joseph  Donaldson,  who  had  been 
appointed  consul  at  Tunis  and  Tripoli,  was  associated 
*  Conf.  State  Papers,  x.,  314. 


THE  PIRA  TIC  A  L  BA  RBA  RY  PO  WERS.  2 1 3 

in  the  negotiations  with  Humphreys,  to  whom  Joel 
Barlow,  the  poet  of  the  "  Columbiad,"  was  afterward 
added,  and  they  were  authorized  to  employ  the  ser- 
vices of  Skjoldebrand.  Much  seems  to  have  de- 
pended on  the  manner  in  which  the  negotiation  was 
carried  on,  and  stress  was  laid  upon  the  fact  that 
the  Americans  had  previously  employed  the  Jewish 
house  of  BsLSsara  &  Co.,  all  whose  efforts  had  been 
countermined  by  their  commercial  rivals,  Bacri  & 
Co.,  who  were  the  confidential  agents  of  the  Dey. 
By  transferring  the  business  from  Bassara  to  Bacri, 
and  by  liberal  promises,  the  Swedes  had  got  the  mat- 
ters into  such  train  that  Donaldson,  who  arrived  in 
Algiers  only  on  the  3d  of  September,  was  able  to  con- 
clude a  treaty  on  the  5th,  the  very  day  on  which 
Barlow  arrived.* 

In  making  this  treaty,  however,  we  had  been 
obliged  to  follo\y  the  usage  of  European  powers — not 
only  pay  a  large  sum  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
peace,  but  an  annual  tribute,  in  order  to  keep  our  ves- 
sels from  being  captured  in  the  future.  The  total 
cost  of  fulfilling  the  treaty  was  estimated  at  $992,- 
463.25.  That  included  $642,500  paid  at  Algiers  to 
the  Dey  and  to  his  officials  and  his  brokers,  a  frigate 

*  Ibid. ,  449.  See  also  the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  of  January  4,  1797,  ibid.,  453.  The  treaty  is  pub- 
lished in  the  Official  Collection  of  Treaties  of  the  United 
States. 


214  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

of  thirty-six  guns,  built  and  furnished  in  the  United 
States;  and  the  naval  stores  and  tribute  of  the  first 
year.  We  were  bound  to  pay  besides  this  sum  about 
$21,600  a  year  in  naval  stores;  $20,000  on  the  pres- 
entation of  a  consul  ;  biennial  presents  to  the  offi- 
cers of  the  government,  estimated  at  $17,000,  as 
well  as  incidental  and  continual  presents  on  the  pro- 
motion of  the  principal  officers  of  the  Dey  and 
regency,  and  for  the  attainment  of  any  important  ob- 
ject.    Of  these  last  no  estimate  could  be  made. 

The  United  States  fell  behind  in  their  payments, 
and  in  1798  sent  four  armed  vessels  to  the  Dey  as 
arrearages.  William  Eaton,  who  had  been  appointed 
consul  to  Tunis,  accompanied  this  fleet,  and  thus  de- 
scribes his  presentation  to  the  Dey  : 

*'  We  proceeded  from  the  American  house  to  the  courtyard 
of  the  palace,  uncovered  our  heads,  entered  the  area  of  the 
hall,  ascended  a  winding  maze  of  five  flights  of  stairs  to  a 
narrow,  dark  entry,  leading  to  a  contracted  apartment  of 
about  twelve  by  eight  feet,  the  private  audience-room.  Here 
we  took  off  our  shoes,  and  entering  the  cave  (for  so  it  seemed), 
with  small  apertures  of  light  with  iron  grates,  we  were  shown 
to  a  huge,  shaggy  beast,  sitting  on  his  rump  upon  a  low  bench, 
covered  with  a  cushion  of  embroidered  velvet,  with  his  hind 
legs  gathered  up  like  a  tailor  or  a  bear.  On  our  approach  to 
him  he  reached  out  his  fore  paw  as  if  to  receive  something 
to  eat.  Our  guide  exclaimed,  *  Kiss  the  Dey's  hand  ! '  The 
consul-general  bowed  very  elegantly  and  kissed  it,  and  we 
followed  his  example  in  succession.  The  animal  seemed  at 
that  moment  to  be  in  a  harmless  mode  ;  he  grinned  several 


THE  PIRA  TICAL  BARBAE V  POWERS.  2 1  5 

times,  but  made  very  little  noise.  Having  performed  this 
ceremony,  and  standing  a  few  moments  in  silent  agony,  we 
had  leave  to  take  our  shoes  and  other  property,  and  leave  the 
den,  without  any  other  injury  than  the  humility  of  being 
obliged,  in  this  involuntary  manner,  to  violate  the  second  com- 
mand of  God  and  offend  common  decency."  * 

A  treaty  was  made  by  Barlow  with  Tripoli  in  No- 
vember, 1796,  on  similar  terms  to  that  made  with 
Algiers ;  indeed,  the  Dey  of  Algiers  advanced  to  the 
United  States  the  money  necessary  to  obtain  the 
peace  ;  and  the  treaty  was  made  under  his  guarantee. 
By  the  tenth  article  the  money  and  presents  given  to 
the  Dey  were  to  be  considered  full  payment,  and  no 
pretence  of  any  periodical  tribute  for  further  payment 
was  ever  to  be  made  by  either  party.  This  clause 
naturally  did  not  hold  good.  The  Tripolitans  became 
dissatisfied  with  the  more  advantageous  terms  which 
had  been  obtained  by  the  Algerines  ;  and  even  had  a 
dispute  been  referred  to  the  Dey  of  Algiers,  as  had 
been  stipulated  for,  it  could  not  be  expected  that  he 
would  decide  in  our  favor.  The  eleventh  article  is 
curious.     It  reads  : 

''  As  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  not  in  any  sense 
founded  on  the  Christian  religion  ;  as  it  has  in  itself  no  char- 
acter of  enmity  against  the  laws,  religion,  and  tranquillity  of 
Mussulmans  ;  and  as  the  said  States  have  never  entered  into 
any  war  or  act  of  hostility  against  any  Mohammedan  nation, 
it  is  declared  by  the  party  that  no  pretext  arising  from  relig- 

*  Life  of  William  Eaton,  by  C.  C.  Felton,  182. 


2l6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ious  opinions  shall  ever  produce  an   interruption  of  the  har- 
mony existing  between  the  two  countries." 

For  the  negotiations  with  Tunis,  Barlow  had  em- 
ployed a  French  trader  by  the  name  of  Famin,  who 
in  1797  succeeded  in  concluding  a  treaty  with  the 
Bey.  But  it  contained  some  articles  to  which  great 
objection  was  made  by  our  Government.  One  of 
these,  the  fourteenth,  the  Senate  refused  to  ratify.  It 
had  provided  that  Americans  sending  goods  to  Tunis, 
in  American  vessels,  should  pay  three  per  cent,  duty, 
while  those  sent  by  foreigners,  on  board  American 
ships,  should  pay  ten  per  cent,  duty  ;  and  that  all  Tu- 
nisians sending  goods  to  the  United  States,  under  any 
flag  whatever,  should  pay  only  three  per  cent.  duty. 
Famin  appeared  to  be  something  of  a  rascal,  and  it 
was  thought  that  this  article,  which  Barlow  said  was 
not  in  the  original  document,  was  inserted  that  he 
himself  might  reap  the  profits  of  any  direct  trade 
between  Tunis  and  the  United  States.  Two  other 
articles  were  also  objected  to ;  one  that  a  barrel  of 
gunpowder  should  be  given  the  Tunisian  government 
for  every  gun  fired  in  saluting  an  American  ship  of 
war ;  and  the  other  that  the  government  of  Tunis 
might  compel  an  American  captain  to  put  his  vessel 
at  their  service  at  such  freight  as  the  government 
chose  to  prescribe.  Mr.  William  Eaton,  who  had 
served  in  the  army,  was  sent  out  as  consul  *to  Tunis 
at  the  same  time  with  Mr.  Cathcart,  who  was  going 


.  THE  PIRA  TIC  A  L  BA  RBA  RY  PO  H'ERS.  2 1  / 

in  the  same  capacity  to  Tripoli.  He  was  authorized 
to  procure  a  revision  of  the  articles  to  which  objec- 
tion had  been  made.  Strangely  enough,  the  greatest 
difficulty  he  found  was  with  regard  to  the  rates  of 
duties.  The  Bey  of  Tunis  objected  to  putting  the 
United  States  on  the  footing  of  the  most  favored 
nation,  as  he  would  never  be  able  to  find  out,  on  ac- 
count of  the  distance,  what  the  various  duties  imposed 
in  America  were.  So  long  as  the  terms  were  fixed, 
whether  one,  ten,  or  a  hundred  per  cent.,  he  would 
agree  to  it.  Besides  this,  however,  he  insisted  on  the 
barrel  of  gunpowder  for  each  gun  fired  in  a  salute. 

*"  However  trifling  it  may  appear  to  you,'  the  Bey  said,  '  to 
me  it  is  important.  Fifteen  barrels  of  gunpowder  will  furnish 
a  cruiser  which  may  capture  a  prize  and  net  me  $100,000.' 
We  told  him  the  concession  was  so  degrading  that  our  nation 
would  not  yield  to  it — both  justice  and  honor  forbade — and 
we  did  not  doubt  the  world  would  view  the  demand  as  they 
did  the  concession.  *  You  consult  your  honor,'  said  he  ;  'I, 
my  interest ;  but  if  you  wish  to  save  your  honor  in  this  in- 
stance, give  me  fifty  barrels  of  powder  annually,  and  I  will 
agree  to  the  alteration.'  " 

There  was  also  a  difficulty  about  presents.  The 
Bey  demanded  certain  articles  of  jewelry  which  could 
only  be  procured  in  London  at  a  great  price.  When 
Eaton  offered  him  even  $50,000,  in  place  of  the  jew- 
elry, he  refused,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  accustomed 
to  presents,  but  did  not  know  their  value,  and  had 


2l8  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

plenty  of  cash.  Finally  the  treaty  was  arranged 
nearly  on  our  terms ;  but  it  cost  us  $107,000."^ 

The  whole  cost  of  buying  freedom  for  our  ships 
from  the  Barbary  powers  had  amounted,  in  1802,  ex- 
clusive of  sundry  expenses  incurred  but  not  yet  paid, 
to  over  two  million  dollars  ;  t  enough,  if  we  may  take 
the  cost  of  the  frigate  sent  to  Algiers  as  an  example, 
to  have  built  and  equipped  twenty  large  frigates. 
Half  of  this,  if  spent  on  naval  appropriations  in  the 
beginning,  would  have  saved  us  the  tribute  of  many 
years  ;  for  it  would  have  procured  peace  with  all  these 
powers  without  payment  or  ransom. 

Indeed,  until  we  sent  a  naval  force  into  the  Medi- 
terranean the  treaties  did  us  little  good.  In  less  than 
three  years  after  the  signature  of  the  peace  of  Tripoli 
the  consul  was  ordered  to  leave,  and  war  was  declared. 
The  Bashaw  was  offended  at  not  being  as  well  paid 
as  Algiers ;  and  yet  under  the  second  year  of  the 
treaty  he  had  received  $12,000,  and  in  the  third  $22,- 
000,  although  nothing  had  been  stipulated.  He  de- 
manded as  a  condition  of  sparing  the  United  States 
the  immediate  payment  of  $225,000,  and  $25,000 
annually — the  Swedes,  with  whom  the  United  States 


*  For  a  full  account  of  the  interesting  negotiations  of  Eaton 
with  Tunis,  one  should  consult  the  Life  of  William  Eaton,  by 
the  late  Professor  C.  C.  Felton,  published  in  the  ninth  volume 
of  Sparks'  Library  of  American  Biography. 

f  Foreign  Relations,  folio  ed.,  ii.  369. 


THE  PIRATICAL  BAKBARY  POWERS.  2ig 

seemed  to  have  been  put  on  an  equality  in  all  these 
wars,  having  agreed  to  these  terms.     Eaton  wrote : 

''  If  our  Government  yield  these  terms  to  the  Bashaw  of 
TripoH,  it  will  be  absolutely  necessary  to  make  provision  for  a 
requisition  of  double  the  amount  for  the  Bey  of  Tunis.  Al- 
giers  will  also  be  respected  according  to  rank.  If  the  United 
States  will  have  a  free  commerce  in  this  sea,  they  must  defend 
it.  There  is  no  alternative.  The  restless  spirit  of  these  ma- 
rauders cannot  be  restrained." 

A  small  squadron  of  American  vessels  was  sent  to 
the  Mediterranean  and  blockaded  Tripoli  in  such  a 
way  that  no  attack  was  made  on  our  trade  until  the 
Dey  of  Algiers  and  the  Bey  of  Tunis  showed  signs  of 
hostility,  when  the  blockade  was  raised  in  order  that 
the  ships  might  act  as  convoys  to  merchant  vessels. 
The  war  gradually  became  more  active,  and  gave  oc- 
casion for  the  display  of  great  gallantry  on  the  part  of 
our  naval  officers.  The  frigate  Philadelphia,  which 
had  unfortunately  grounded  on  rocks  at  the  entrance 
of  the  harbor  of  Tripoli,  was  captured  and  all  its  offi- 
cers and  crew  made  prisoners.  The  Philadelphia  was 
most  gallantly  destroyed  a  few  months  later  by  a  de- 
tachment under  the  command  of  Decatur,  then  only  a 
lieutenant.  There  were  other  small  actions  in  which 
our  officers  showed  distinguished  bravery;  but  the 
most  romantic  incident  of  the  war  was  the  overland 
march  through  four  hundred  miles  of  desert,  from 
Alexandria  to  Derna,  of  Eaton,  in  company  with  the 


220  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ex-Bashaw  Hamet,  who  had  been  dethroned  by  his 
brother,  and  whose  cause,  owing  to  Eaton's  represen- 
tations, our  Government  had  taken  up.  Derna  was 
occupied,  the  troops  of  the  Bashaw  were  defeated,  and 
we  might  have  obtained  a  peace  with  Tripoli  on  our 
own  terms,  as  well  as  have  reinstated  Hamet,  accord- 
ing to  our  agreement  with  him,  had  not  Colonel 
Tobias  Lear,*  consul-general  at  Algiers,  under  discre- 
tionary powers  which  had  been  granted  to  him,  hastily 
made  a  treaty  by  which  we  gained  none  of  the  prin- 
ciples at  stake,  and  simply  bought  a  peace  by  the 
payment  of  $60,000  ransom  for  the  American  captives 
in  Tripoli.  To  our  great  disgrace  Hamet  was  aban- 
doned. Colonel  Lear  had  put  an  article  into  the 
treaty  that  his  family  should  be  restored  to  him ;  but 
by  a  secret  article,  which  was  never  officially  com- 
municated to  the  United  States  Government,  and 
was  not  known  by  them  until  some  time  later,  instead 
of  being  obliged  to  restore  the  family  at  once,  the 
Bashaw  was  given  four  years  for  that  purpose.  It 
may  have  been  very  unwise  for  us  to  have  made  the 
original  agreement  with  Hamet  to  restore  him  to  his 
throne  ;  but  certainly  we  showed  bad  policy  and  bad 
faith  in  not  keeping  our  agreement. 

We  already  had  difficulties  with  Algiers.     In  Octo- 
ber, 1800,  the  Dey  informed  the  consul   that  he  in- 

*  Colonel  Lear  had  been  private  secretary  to  General  Wash- 
ington. 


THE  PIRATICAL  BARBAE Y  POWERS.  221 

tended  to  send  an  ambassador  to  the  Porte,  at  Con- 
stantinople, with  the  usual  presents,  and  for  that 
purpose  he  should  choose  the  small  American  frigate 
George  Washington,  which  happened  to  be  at  that  time 
in  the  harbor  of  Algiers.  At  that  time  we  had  never 
had  any  relations  with  the  Turks,  nor  had  we  any 
treaty  with  any  of  the  Italian  states  who  were  at  war 
with  Algiers.  The  captain  was,  of  course,  without 
orders  on  the  subject.  To  the  objections  of  the  con- 
sul the  Dey  threatened  war,  plunder,  and  captivity 
unless  the  vessel  should  go.  More  than  this,  it  was 
necessary  to  hoist  the  Algerine  flag  at  the  maintop  of 
the  frigate.  It  was  found  impossible. to  refuse.  Not 
only  was  the  Algerine  flag  raised,  but  it  was  saluted 
with  seven  guns,  a  compliment  which  ultimately  cost 
the  United  States  $40,000.  The  only  satisfaction 
was,  that  after  arriving  at  her  destination  the  George 
Washington  was  the  first  of  our  ships  to  raise  the 
American  flag  in  the  Bosphorus. 

Grievances  were  easily  made  out  by  the  Dey.  The 
naval  stores,  he  claimed,  had  not  come  up  to  the 
quality  desired,  and  had  been  short  in  amount ;  and, 
more  than  that,  as  the  reckoning  of  the  tribute  was  by 
Mohammedan  years  and  not  by  the  Christian  calen- 
dar, we  were  found  deficient  to  the  amount  of  $27,000 
in  the  year  18 12.  The  consul  was  ordered  to  leave 
the  country,  but  not  before  he  had  paid  this  amount 
of  money,  which  he  was  obliged  to  borrow  at  a  heavy 


222  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

interest.  At  that  time  we  had  already  paid  in  trib- 
utes to  Algiers  the  sum  of  $378,363.  The  Dey  had 
not  chosen  his  time  well,  owing  to  the  war  with  Great 
Britain.  Very  few  of  our  ships  were  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean, and  he  captured  only  one  small  brig  with  a 
crew  of  eleven  persons.  After  the  treaty  of  peace 
had  been  made  with  England,  we  declared  war 
against  Algiers,  and  a  naval  force  was  sent  out.  Be- 
fore our  ships  arrived  at  Algiers,  they  had  already 
captured  an  Algerine  frigate  and  brig ;  and  on  their 
arrival  they  found  that  the  whole  Algerine  corsair 
fleet  was  at  sea.  It  was  therefore  very  easy  to  inter- 
cept the  ships  as  they  returned  to  port.  The  next 
day  after  the  arrival  of  the  squadron,  the  Algerines 
proposed  a  treaty.  The  American  negotiators,  Com- 
modore Decatur  and  Mr.  William  Shaler,  who  had 
been  sent  out  as  consul-general,  replied  with  a  draft 
of  a  treaty,  and  with  a  declaration  that  the  United 
States  would  never  pay  tribute  under  any  form  what- 
ever. The  Dey  asked  for  time  to  consider,  but  this 
was  refused.  He  even  pleaded  for  three  hours.  The 
reply  was  : 

"  Not  a  minute.  If  your  squadron  appears  in  sight  before 
the  treaty  is  actually  signed  by  the  Dey,  and  sent  off  with 
the  American  prisoners,  ours  will  capture  it." 

An  Algerine  ship  did  come  in  sight,  and  every 
preparation  was  made  for  a  fight ;  but  within  three 
hours,  through  the  mediation  of  the  Swedish  consul, 


THE  FIKA  riCA  L  BA  KB  A  RY  PO  WERS.  223 

the  treaty  had  been  signed  by  the  Dey,  and  the 
American  prisoners  were  delivered  up,  although  the 
messenger,  accompanied  by  the  Swedish  consul  as 
mediator,  had  to  row  five  miles  to  the  shore  and  back 
in  that  time.  No  presents  were  given,  and  tribute 
and  presents  of  any  kind  were  henceforth  abolished. 
It  was  agreed,  also,  that  prisoners  of  war  should  not 
be  made  slaves.  This  was  on  June  30,  18 15,  just 
forty-one  days  after  the  squadron  had  left  American 
waters. 

On  the  same  day  Mr.  Shaler  landed  as  consul-gen- 
eral, and  was  received  with  due  honor.  All  the 
American  property  which  had  been  illegally  seized  in 
Algiers  was  restored,  and  $10,000  were  paid  as  an 
equivalent  for  the  captured  brig  Edwin  and  her  cargo. 
Without  inserting  any  stipulation  to  that  effect  in 
the  treaty,  Decatur  agreed,  as  a  mark  of  good-will,  to 
restore  the  two  Algerine  vessels  which  had  been  cap- 
tured. 

"  You  told  us,"  the  Dey's  minister  sorrowfully  said  to  the 
British  consul,  "  that  the  Americans  would  be  swept  from  the 
seas  in  six  months  by  your  navy,  and  now  they  make  war  upon 
us  with  some  of  your  own  vessels,  which  they  have  taken." 

Both  Tunis  and  Tripoli  had  shown  a  hostile  dispo- 
sition, and  both  in  conformity  with  their  treaties 
with  England,  but  contrary  to  those  made  with  us, 
had,  during  the  war,  allowed  English  ships  to  take 
possession  of  American  prizes  anchored  in  their  har- 


224  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

bors.  Decatur  therefore  proceeded  to  Tunis  and  de- 
manded an  indemnity  of  $46,000  for  two  prizes  taken 
by  the  privateer  Abellino  and  seized  in  the  port  of 
Tunis  by  a  British  ship  of  war.  "  I  know  this  ad- 
miral," said  the  Dey  to  our  consul,  Mr.  Noah ;  "  he  is 
the  same  one  who,  in  the  war  with  Sidi  Yusuf,  of 
Tripoli,  burnt  the  frigate."  The  Dey  looked  at  the 
fleet,  laid  down  his  telescope,  sank  back  in  his  cush- 
ions, combed  his  beard  with  a  small  tortoise-shell 
comb  set  with  diamonds,  reflected  a  minute,  and  or- 
dered the  money  to  be  paid  immediately. 

At  Tripoli  it  was  much  the  same.  The  Bashaw  at 
first  threatened  war,  but  when  he  learned  what  had 
happened  at  Algiers  and  Tunis,  he  paid  $25,000,  as 
indemnity  for  two  prizes  carried  away  by  the  Eng- 
lish, and  released  ten  Christian  captives,  two  of  them 
being  Danish  youths,  and  the  remainder  the  family 
of  a  Sicilian  gentleman. 

Decatur,  in  reporting  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 

(August  31,  18 1 5),  says: 

"  Any  attempt  to  conciliate  them,  except  through  their 
fears,  I  should  expect  to  be  vain.  It  is  only  by  the  display  of 
naval  power  that  this  depredation  can  be  restrained.  I  trust 
the  successful  result  of  our  small  expedition,  so  honorable  to 
our  country,  will  induce  other  nations  to  follow  the  example  ; 
in  which  case  the  Barbary  States  will  be  compelled  to  abandon 
their  piratical  system." 

The  speedy  success  of  our  expedition  caused  much 
talk,  and  early  in  18 16  the  British   government  sent 


THE  PIRA  TIC  A  L  BA  RBA  RY  PO IVERS.  22  S 

out  Lord  Exmouth  to  the  Barbary  States  with  in- 
structions to  procure  a  peace  for  Naples  and  Sardinia 
on  the  same  terms  as  those  made  with  Spain  and 
Portugal  (for  it  was  desired  to  strengthen  these  states 
as  a  barrier  against  France) ;  to  notify  them  that  the 
Ionian  Islands  had  been  put  under  British  protection, 
and  that  their  commerce  must  be  therefore  respected, 
and  especially  with  reference  to  our  treaty  just  con- 
cluded with  Algiers.  Its  eighteenth  article,  with  re- 
gard to  prizes  in  war,  was  held  to  be  incompatible 
with  the  ninth  and  tenth  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1698 
between  Great  Britain  and  Algiers.  While  "  it  might 
not  for  this  reason  be  necessary  to  require  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Algiers,"  Lord  Exmouth  was  "  instructed  formally  to 
protest  against  the  application  of  that  article  of  the 
treaty  to  Great  Britain  in  the  case  of  any  future 
hostilities  between  that  country  and  the  United 
States."^ 

The  question  of  putting  down  the  Barbary  powers 
had  been  brought  before  the  Congress  of  Vienna  by 
Admiral  Sir  Sidney  Smith,  who  advocated  a  league 
of  European  powers  for  the  purpose  of  extirpating 
these  pirates,  and  suggested  as  the  best  method  that 
a  permanent  blockade  be  established  along  their  coast. 
English  policy  seems  to  have  prevented  the  Congress 

*  John  Ouincy  Adams,  Memoirs,  iii.,  356. 
15 


226  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

from  taking  any  action  on  this  subject,  and  there  was 
a  division  of  opinion  as  to  what  course  should  be 
pursued ;  whether,  so  long  as  English  commerce  was 
made  safe,  these  piratical  states  should  be  preserved 
in  order  to  prey  upon  the  commerce  of  other  nations; 
and  what  the  interests  of  England  demanded.  The 
Edinburgh  Review  said  :  ^ 

**  Indeed  the  common  belief  in  the  Mediterranean  is  that 
we  rather  encourage  the  piracy  of  these  freebooters  for  the 
purpose  of  opposing  the  commerce  of  other  nations,  a  most 
false  charge  undoubtedly  in  this  extent  ;  but  so  far  founded  in 
truth  that  we  might  by  a  word  have  put  them  down  long  ago, 
and  that  we  have  always,  for  one  reason  or  another,  abstained 
from  exerting  our  lawful  means  of  destroying  them." 

The  Quarterly  Review^  which  at  that  time,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Adams,  "  was  a  mere  ministerial  pamphlet," 
in  April,  1816,  gave  the  Tory  view  of  the  question,  and 
attempted  to  prove  that  because  England  had  abol- 
ished negro  slavery  there  was  no  reason  that  it  should 
touch  white  slavery,  which  was  not  so  bad.  The 
slaves  were  well  enough  treated,  and  could  always  be 
ransomed  by  their  friends  and  relations ;  and  besides 
that,  they  were  mostly  Sardinians,  Neapolitans,  and 
Sicilians,  whom  apparently  the  writer  thought  beneath 
notice.  The  article  maintained  that  England  could 
not  consistently  with  sound  policy  and  good  faith 
join  in  a  league  for  putting  down  the  Barbary  pow- 

*  Vol.  xxvi.,  449. 


THE  PIRATICAL  BARBARY  POWERS.  22/ 

ers.  "  As  far  as  natural  interests  are  concerned,"  it 
said,  "  it  would  be  an  act  of  madness  ;  "  that  the  cause 
of  humanity  would  in  no  way  be  benefited — and,  in- 
deed, why  should  England  be  pirate-taker  general  ? 
Or  if  she  was  to  start  in  that  course,  she  had  better 
begin  by  putting  down  the  pirates  in  the  China  seas, 
where  her  trade  suffered,  whereas  she  was  abundantly 
able  to  secure  the  safety  of  her  commerce  in  the 
Mediterranean. 

Lord  Shefifield  had  said  in  1783,  in  his  "  Observa- 
tions on  the  Commerce  of  the  American  States  : " 

"It  is  not  probable  that  the  American  States  will  have  a 
very  free  trade  in  the  Mediterranean.  It  will  not  be  for  the 
interest  of  any  of  the  great  maritime  powers  to  protect  them 
from  the  Barbary  States.  If  they  know  their  own  interests, 
they  will  not  encourage  the  Americans  to  be  carriers.  That 
the  Barbary  States  were  advantageous  to  the  maritime  powers 
is  certain.  If  they  were  suppressed,  the  little  states  of  Italy 
would  have  much  more  of  the  carrying  trade.  .  .  .  The 
armed  neutrality  would  be  as  hurtful  to  the  great  maritime 
powers  as  the  Barbary  States  are  useful.  The  Americans  can- 
not protect  themselves  from  the  latter  ;  they  cannot  pretend 
to  a  navy." 

And  Smollett  had  said  : 

*'  All  the  powers  that  border  on  the  Mediterranean,  except 
France  and  Tuscany,  are  at  perpetual  war  with  the  Moors  of 
Barbary,  and  for  that  reason  obliged  to  employ  foreign  ships 
for  the  transportation  of  their  merchandise.  This  employ- 
ment naturally  devolves  to  those  nations  whose  vessels  are  in 
no  danger  from  the  depredations  of  the  Barbarians,  namely, 


228  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the  subjects  of  the  maritime  powers,  who,  for  this  puny  ad- 
vantage, not  only  tolerate  the  piratical  states  of  Barbary,  but 
even  supply  them  with  arms  and  ammunition,  solicit  their 
passes,  and  purchase  their  forbearance  with  annual  presents, 
which  are,  in  effect,  equivalent  to  a  tribute."  * 

In  i8i6  Chateaubriand  proposed  in  the  French 
House  of  Peers  that  the  different  courts  of  Europe 
should  all  unite  in  the  endeavor  to  prevail  upon  the 
Barbary  powers  to  abolish  their  practice  of  making 
slaves  of  Christians.  Lord  Castlereagh  said  of  it  to 
Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams,  "  with  a  sneering  smile,  that  he 
thought  it  was  only  a  project  of  Sir  Sidney  Smith's 
which  would  not  meet  with  much  encouragement."  t 

The  treaties  made  by  Lord  Exmouth  provided  that 
the  Neapolitan  government  should  pay  to  Algiers 
$24,000  yearly,  with  the  usual  biennial  consular  pres- 
ents, and  all  the  captives,  one  thousand  in  number, 
were  ransomed  at  $1,000  per  head.  The  arrangement 
with  Sardinia  was  similar,  but  the  forty  captives  were 
rated  at  only  $500  each.  The  rulers  of  Tunis  and 
Tripoli  agreed  entirely  to  abolish  Christian  slavery, 
and  encouraged  by  this  success  Lord  Exmouth  re- 
turned to  Algiers  in  order  to  procure  the  same  con- 
cession from  the  Dey.  But  he  was  met  by  a  point- 
blank  refusal,  and  then  by  requests  for  delay,  which 
was  granted  after  the  British  consul  had  been  arrested 

*  Smollett,  History  of  Great  Britain,  George  II.,  ch.  vii. 
i  Memoirs,  iii.,  365. 


THE  FIR  A  riCA  L  BA  RBA  RY  PO  WERS.  229 

and  several  naval  officers  insulted.  Lord  Exmouth 
sailed  for  home  on  May  2ist.  His  action  brought  on 
a  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons,  when  Lord 
Brougham 

"  Reproved  the  terms  on  which  the  treaty  had  been  made,  and 
thought  that  if  the  country  had  sanctioned  them  with  its  au- 
thority, a  great  stain  would  be  fixed  on  her  character  and  con- 
sequences injurious  to  her  reputation  and  honor  could  not  fail 
to  arrive."  * 

No  sooner  was  Lord  Exmouth's  back  turned  than 
the  Dey,  to  show  his  anger,  ordered  the  arrest  of  all 
Italians  under  British  protection  at  Gran  and  Bona. 
The  latter  were  chiefly  Neapolitans,  engaged  in  the 
coral  fishery,  and  while  they  were  hearing  mass  on 
shore,  on  the  morning  of  May  31st,  one  hundred  were 
killed,  one  hundred  wounded,  and  about  eight  hun- 
dred taken  prisoners.  The  British  vice-consul  was  ar- 
rested, but  his  life  was  saved  through  the  friendship 
of  the  governor.  The  English  acted  at  once,  and 
Lord  Exmouth  was  sent  back  in  command  of  a 
squadron,  assisted  by  five  Dutch  ships  under  the 
command  of  Admiral  van  der  Capellen.  The  Dey  re- 
fused the  terms  proposed  to  him.  The  British  fleet 
then  bombarded  and  burned  Algiers,  upon  which  the 
Dey  came  to  his  senses,  and  on  the  next  day  signed 
the  treaty.  By  this  all  Christian  slaves  were  given 
up — sixteen  hundred  and  forty-two  in  number — and 

*  Hansard's  Debates,  June  18,  1816. 


230  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

with  those  from  Tunis  and  Tripoli,  three  thousand 
and  three  in  all ;  $400,000  were  paid  back  to  Naples 
and  Sardinia  for  the  ransom  money  received  that  year, 
and  an  agreement  was  made  to  treat  prisoners  of  war 
according  to  the  usage  of  European  nations.^ 

The  punishment  was  sufficient  for  the  time;  but 
the  next  Dey,  Ali  Khoja,  kidnapped  the  daughters  of 
European  residents  for  his  harem,  sent  plague  ships 
about  the  Mediterranean  to  spread  the  pest,  and  be- 
haved in  such  a  way  that  the  Congress  of  Aix-la- 
Chapelle  in  1818  resolved  to  repress  his  practices, 
and  commissioned  England  and  France  to  act  for 
Europe.  A  combined  English  and  French  squadron 
arrived  off  Algiers  in  September  18 19,  but  the  new 
Dey  refused  to  submit,  and  after  a  blockade  the  fleet 
retired.  It  was  not  until  the  insult  offered  to  the 
French  consul  in  1827  that  decisive  action  was  taken, 
terminating  in  the  French  conquest  in  1829,  when  the 
Dey  was  allowed  to  retire  to  Italy. 

To  return  to  our  own  affairs.  The  day  after  Lord 
Exmouth  made  his  first  treaties  with  Algiers,  the 
Dey,  under  pretext  of  the  difficulties  with  his  two 
ships,  which  had  been  delivered  by  Decatur  at  Carta- 
gena, and  had  been  detained  by  the  Spanish  authori- 

*  For  the  history  of  these  events,  during  which  the  Amer- 
ican consul-general,  William  Shaler,  appears  to  have  acted 
very  well,  see  The  Scourge  of  Christendom,  by  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  R.  L.  Playfair. 


THE  PIRA  TIC  A  L  BARB  A  RY  PO  WERS.  2  3 1 

ties,  declared  his  treaty  of  18 15  with  us  to  be  no 
longer  binding.  He  sent  away  our  consul,  and  wrote 
a  letter  concerning  his  action  to 

"His  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  America,  its  adjacent  and  de- 
pendent provinces,  coasts,  and  wherever  his  government  may 
extend  ;  our  noble  friend,  the  support  of  the  kings  of  the  na- 
tion of  Jesus,  the  pillar  of  all  Christian  sovereigns,  the  most 
glorious  amongst  the  princes,  elected  amongst  many  lords  and 
nobles  ;  the  happy,  the  great,  the  amiable  James  Madison, 
Emperor  of  America — may  his  reign  be  happy  and  glorious, 
and  his  life  long  and  prosperous." 

President  Madison,  in  his  reply  of  August,  18 16, 
said  : 

**  The  United  States,  whilst  they  wish  for  war  with  no  nation, 
will  buy  peace  of  none.  It  is  a  principle  incorporated  into  the 
settled  policy  of  America,  that  as  peace  is  better  than  war,  war 
is  better  than  tribute." 

After  the  bombardment  of  Algiers  by  the  British, 
and  the  opportune  arrival  of  another  American  squad- 
ron under  Commodore  Chauncey,  no  further  difficulty 
was  made  about  carrying  out  the  treaty,  and  it  was 
renewed  in  December,  18 16.  By  some  accident  this 
treaty  was  overlooked  in  the  State  Department,  and 
it  was  not  ratified  until  France,  Sardinia,  and  Holland 
made  similar  treaties  with  Algiers;  but  Naples, 
Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Portugal  continued  for  some 
years  to  pay  a  tribute  of  $24,000  annually. 

In  spite  of  the  many  hesitations  of  our  policy  it 


232  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

will  be  seen  that  the  United  States  was  first  to  obtain 
from  the  Barbary  powers  the  abolition  of  presents  and 
the  proper  treatment  of  its  prisoners  of  war.  |  Inciden- 
tally these  difficulties  with  Barbary  gave  us  a  navy.' 
But  the  cost  of  the  diplomatic  negotiations  must  have 
equalled  that  of  the  naval  operations.  The  expendi- 
tures for  intercourse  with  the  Barbary  powers  paid 
out  by  the  State  Department,  apart  from  salaries, 
amounted  in  1821  to  $2,650,709.*  Even  after  the 
tribute  had  ceased,  the  regular  annual  appropriations 
under  this  head,  down  to  1841,  were  $42,000,  then 
$30,000,  and  finally  $17,400;  but  for  some  part  of 
this  time  this  was  only  another  name  for  the  secret 
service  fund. 

*  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  38,  44th  Congress,  2d  Session,  pp.  44, 
54»  55- 


V. 


THE    RIGHT    OF    SEARCH    AND    THE 
SLAVE-TRADE. 

Negro  Slavery. — Prohibition  of  the  Slave-trade. — English 
Feeling  and  English  Interests. — The  Right  of  Search. — 
English  Treaties. — The  Police  of  the  Seas. — Treaty  of 
Ghent. — Lord  Castlereagh's  Propositions. — Mr.  Adams' 
Reply. — The  Slave-trade  Piracy. — Rush's  Treaty. — Can- 
ning's Objections  to  the  Amendments. — Mr.  Adams'  Ex- 
planation.— Attempt  to  Execute  Treaties  by  a  British 
Statute. — The  British  Claim  to  Search  American  Vessels. 
— Lord  Aberdeen. — Tyler's  Message. — The  Quintuple 
Treaty. — General  Cass. — Lord  Brougham. — The  Ashbur- 
ton  Treaty.— Cass  and  Webster. — Opinions  of  Publicists. 
— Brazil. — Renewed  Vigor. — General  Cass  and  Lord  Na- 
pier.— British  Outrages  in  1858. — Debate  in  Parliament. — 
The  English  Claim  Withdrawn.— Mr.  Seward's  Treaty  of 
1862. — Additional  Treaty  of  1870. 

It  would  be  unfair  to  charge  England  exclusively 
with  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  America. 
Negro  slaves  were  imported  into  the  Dutch  colony  of 
New  Amsterdam  even  before  it  had  been  occupied 
by  the  English.  Nevertheless,  this  traffic  was  fos- 
tered by  England ;  and  even  where  the  colonies  had 
passed  acts  tending  to  diminish  the  slave-trade,  the  as- 


234  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

sent  to  them  had  been  refused  by  the  King.*  Further 
back,  in  the  time  of  Charles  II.,  owing  to  domestic 
troubles,  the  emigration  from  England  had  taken 
such  proportions  that  the  introduction  of  slaves  into 
the  colonies  was  looked  upon  as  a  means  of  prevent- 
ing it ;  and  the  King  by  a  proclamation  called  upon 
his  subjects  to  subscribe  in  order  to  form  a  new  com- 
pany for  the  continuation  of  the  trade.  At  the  peace 
of  Utrecht,  in  17 13,  the  English  considered  themselves 
repaid  for  many  of  the  sacrifices  to  which  they  had 
submitted  during  the  war  of  the  Spanish  Succession, 
by  obtaining  an  article  known  as  the  Facto  del  Assiento 
de  Negros,  by  which  Great  Britain  and  the  South  Sea 
Company  obtained  the  exclusive  right  to  introduce 
slaves  into  the  Spanish  -provinces  of  America,  to  the 
number  of  4,800  yearly,  for  thirty  successive  years. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  negro  slavery  existed  in 
nearly  all  the  colonies,  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence had  no  sooner  been  signed  than  measures  were 
taken  to  prohibit  the  slave-trade ;  and  at  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  in  1787,  an  article  was  in- 
serted prohibiting  entirely  the  importation  of  slaves 

*  The  chief  authorities  for  this  chapter  are  Enquiry  into 
the  Validity  of  the  British  Claim  to  a  Right  of  Visitation  and 
Search  of  American  Vessels  suspected  to  be  engaged  in  the 
African  Slave-trade,  by  Henry  Wheaton,  originally  published 
in  1 841  ;  Wheaton's  History  of  International  Law;  and  Visita- 
tion and  Search  by  William  Beach  Lawrence,  1858.  All  quo- 
tations from  speeches  and  documents  have  been  verified. 


THE   RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  •  235 

after  January  i,  1808.  In  1794  a  law  was  passed  for- 
bidding the  slave-trade  to  Americans  under  severe 
penalties. 

Owing  to  the  efforts  of  the  partisans  of  abolition  in 
England,  the  question  of  suppressing  the  slave-trade, 
and  even  of  slavery  itself,  had  been  before  the  public 
for  many  years;  but  it  was  not  until  1807  that  Parlia- 
ment succeeded  in  passing  a  law  abolishing  the  slave- 
trade,  and  even  then  there  seemed  to  be  great  danger 
that  it  would  be  vetoed  by  the  King,  who  opposed 
any  sort  of  innovation.  Denmark  indeed  had,  by  a 
law  passed  in  1792,  abolished  the  slave-trade  and  the 
importation  of  slaves  into  its  colonies,  beginning  with 
the  year  1804.  With  this  exception,  and  even  this 
was  only  for  the  date  at  which  the  law  was  to  take 
effect,  the  United  States  were  the  first  to  prohibit 
the  kidnapping  and  trapping  in  human  beings. 

Wrong  as  we  all  believe  the  slave-trade  to  be,  we 
are  now  in  a  position,  since  slavery  has  been,  through 
military  force,  entirely  abolished  in  the  United  States, 
to  consider  the  subject  more  calmly  and  without  pre- 
judice. 

All  nations  are  subject  to  sudden  gusts  of  philan- 
thropy, and  none  more  so  than  the  English.  But 
while  we  may  admit  that  it  was  entirely  owing  to  the 
efforts  of  philanthropic  men  that  the  slave-trade  and 
slavery  were  abolished  by  England,  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  the  active  and  long-continued  policy,  for 


236  •  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

nearly  fifty  years,  of  putting  down  the  slave-trade  by 
all  means  within  its  power  was  entirely  owing  to 
philanthropic  motives.  It  was  soon  found  that,  as 
slaves  could  no  longer  be  introduced  into  the  British 
colonies,  while  the  traffic  that  formerly  went  to  them 
was  diverted  to  the  neighboring  colonies,  the  British 
colonies  suffered  through  want  of  hands,  and  foreign 
trade  flourished.  The  cost  of  the  production  of  sugar, 
for  instance,  which  had  much  influence  on  the  ques- 
tion, was  greater  in  the  British  West  Indies  than  in 
the  Spanish  colonies.  British  interests,  quite  apart 
from  any  question  of  philanthropy,  demanded,  as  far 
as  possible,  the  entire  suppression  of  the  slave-trade. 
Although  the  real  reason  was  fairly  well  concealed 
under  the  mask  of  philanthropy,  it  occasionally  shows 
itself  very  plainly.  For  instance,  in  a  debate  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  on  June  15,  18 10,  on  a  motion  of 
Mr.  Brougham  with  regard  to  the  suppression  of  the 
African  slave-trade,  Mr.  Marryatt,  who  was  an  emi- 
nent West  Indian  merchant  and  at  the  same  time 
colonial  agent  for  Trinidad,  said  : 

"  We  ought  to  adopt  not  a  nominal  but  an  effectual  abolition 
of  this  abominable  traffic.  He  alluded  more  particularly  to 
the  Spanish  slave-traders,  who  carried  on  a  traffic  enormous  in 
its  extent,  and  in  its  effects  ruinous  to  the  British  colonies. 
In  truth,  as  some  had  formerly  predicted,  the  slave-trade  was 
not  destroyed  ;  it  had  only  changed  hands.  Trinidad  no 
longer  obtained  the  ?iegroes  so  necessary  for  its  cultivation. 
But  the  same  number  of  negroes  were  exported  from  Africa, 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  237 

only  they  went  to  the  Spanish  colonies  instead  of  our  own. 
He  appealed  to  the  British  Parliament  on  the  part  of  our  own 
planters,  and  trusted  that  effectual  steps  would  yet  be  taken 
for  remedying  so  serious  an  evil." 

Not  only  was  it  proposed  to  abolish  the  slave-trade 
to  other  countries,  but  even  when  this  was  found  dif- 
ficult, to  prohibit  the  importation  of  products  raised 
by  slave  labor,  especially  of  sugar.  As  to  cotton, 
there  was  not  yet  a  question.  But  sugar  was  raised 
in  British  colonies,  and  it  cost  more  than  sugar  raised 
by  slave  labor.  A  writer  in  the  Quarterly  Review  ^' 
lays  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  Brazilians  and  Span- 
iards, not  the  Africans,  reaped  the  benefit  of  British 
emancipation  until  slavery  should  be  abolished  in 
their  countries.  He  speaks  of  the  depopulation  of 
more  than  one-half  of  the  British  West  Indian  settle- 
ments, the  destruction  of  more  than  one-half  of  Brit- 
ish West  Indian  commerce,  the  displacement  of  the 
sugar  cultivation  of  the  colonies  of  other  nations,  and 
the  transfer  of  the  Cuban  trade  from  Great  Britain  to 
the  United  States.  And  then,  after  arguing  in  be- 
half of  the  British  sugar  planters,  in  an  outburst  of 
philanthropic  zeal,  says : 

**If  on  any  pretext  whatever,  political  or  commercial, 
whether  to  help  her  revenue  or  cheapen  her  purchases,  Great 
Britain  admits  into  her  own  market  a  single  ton  of  sugar  raised 
by  a  slave-importing  colony,  she  is  a  direct  receiver  in  the 
felony,  with  more  than  a  felon's  guilt." 

*  Vol.  Iv. ,  p.  250. 


238  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

The  English  cabinet  saw  that  it  would  be  necessary 
in  the  general  pacification  to  restore  the  French  and 
other  colonies  that  had  been  taken  possession  of  dur- 
ing the  war,  and  therefore  pressed  the  more  earnestly 
at  the  Congress  of  Vienna  for  general  measures  for 
the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  on  account  of  the  in- 
cidental protection  thereby  accorded  to  British  trade. 
The  Congress  did  in  general  terms  stigmatize  the 
slave-trade,  but  left  the  measures  for  its  abolition  to 
the  care  of  each  individual  nation. 

During  the  war  the  English  had  been  able  to  sup- 
press in  great  measure  this  traflfic  by  the  belligerent 
right  of  search.  Knowing  that  this  right  could  not 
exist  in  time  of  peace,  England  endeavored  to  make 
treaties  with  various  countries  in  order  to  permit  it, 
for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the  slave-trade.  Be- 
fore the  year  1820  such  treaties  were  made  with  Den- 
mark, Spain,  Portugal,  and  the  Netherlands ;  al- 
though for  the  treaty  with  Portugal  England  agreed 
to  pay  the  sum  of  i^3CX),ooo,  under  the  pretext  of  in- 
demnities for  slave-ships  captured  in  war ;  and  to 
Spain  the  sum  of  ^400,000  was  given  outright.  It  is 
hardly  to  be  supposed  that,  with  the  burdens  then 
weighing  on  the  English  exchequer,  these  large  sums 
would  have  been  given  unless  an  equivalent  of  some 
kind  was  expected.  More  than  that,  England  only 
gained  the  cessation  of  the  slave-trade  by  Spain  and 
Portugal  in  regions  north  of  the  equator.    The  reason 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  239 

was  very  simple.  It  was  to  prevent  the  domains  of 
other  powers  obtaining  cheap  labor,  and  thus  com- 
peting with  the  British  West  India  Islands. 
(  So  far  one  of  the  main  reasons  for  the  continued 
action  of  England  against  the  slave-trade  was  the 
protection  of  British  commerce.  But  British  states- 
men soon  began  to  see  that,  through  the  right  of 
visitation  and  search  which  had  been  accorded  by  the 
treaties  with  the  several  powers,  it  might  be  easy, 
under  pretext  of  putting  down  the  slave-trade,  to 
obtain  the  police  of  the  sea,  which  once  having  been 
granted  and  made  the  rule  of  international  law,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  take  away  from  them ;  and  this 
would  secure  the  preponderance  of  the  British  navy. 

The  treaty  of  Ghent,  which  put  an  end  to  our 
maritime  war  with  England,  simply  restored  the  state 
of  things  before  the  war,  without  deciding  any  of  the 
questions  of  maritime  rights  that  were  involved. 
The  English  negotiators,  however,  considered  this  a 
good  occasion  on  which  to  procure  our  assent  to  their 
principles  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade.  An 
article  (the  tenth)  was  therefore  introduced  to  the 
effect  that 

"  Whereas  the  traffic  in  slaves  is  irreconcilable  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  humanity  and  justice  ;  and  whereas  his  Majesty  and 
the  United  States  are  desirous  of  continuing  their  efforts  to 
promote  its  entire  abolition  ;  it  is  hereby  agreed  that  both 
the  contracting  powers  shall  use  their  best  endeavors  to  ac- 
complish so  desirable  an  object." 


240  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

This  was  the  beginning  of  a  negotiation  that  lasted 
fully  fifty  years,  which,  though  nominally  for  the  abo- 
lition of  the  slave-trade,  turned  almost  entirely  on 
the  right  of  searching  vessels  during  time  of  peace. 
Without  following  every  detail  of  these  negotiations, 
there  are  certain  points  that  are  of  more  than  usual 
interest,  and  on  these  I  shall  touch. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  treaty  with  Spain 
of  1817,  by  which,  in  consideration  of  the  payment  of 
;^400,ooo,  England  obtained  the  abolition  of  the 
slave-trade  south  of  the  equator,  its  eventual  total 
abolition,  and  a  right  of  search,  for  the  nominal  pur- 
pose of  putting  it  down.  In  a  subsequent  debate  in 
Parliament,  February  8,  18 18,  great  satisfaction  was 
expressed,  and  the  right  of  search  granted  was  con- 
sidered a  precedent  of  the  greatest  value.  In  order 
to  make  use  as  soon  as  possible  of  this  precedent, 
Lord  Castlereagh  called  a  meeting  of  the  foreign  rep- 
resentatives then  in  London,  and  read  to  them  a 
memoir,  showing  that  since  the  general  pacification 
of  Europe,  the  slave-trade  had  increased.  As  the 
belligerent  right  of  search  had  ceased  since  the  war,  it 
was  necessary  for  the  powers  to  make  mutual  conces- 
sions on  this  subject ;  for  if  even  a  single  one  refused 
to  submit  to  the  exercise  of  this  right,  the  slave-trade 
might  be  carried  on  under  the  flag  of  that  country. 
It  was  suggested,  therefore,  that  the  ministers  of  all 
the  powers  should  make  an  arrangement  by  which 


THE   RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  24 1 

the  vessels  of  war  of  their  respective  countries  should 
have  the  right  of  visit  for  this  purpose.  As  the 
ministers  had  no  instructions  they  could  only  refer 
the  affair  to  their  governments.  On  subsequent  ne- 
gotiations the  French  government  declined  to  enter 
into  any  such  arrangement. 

Lord  Castlereagh  also  communicated  to  Mr.  Rush, 
our  minister  at  London,  the  text  of  the  treaties  con- 
cluded between  England  and  Spain,  and  other  Euro- 
pean powers,  and  invited  the  United  States  to  enter 
into  a  similar  arrangement.  Independently  of  this, 
Mr.  Burrow,  of  Rhode  Island,  had  introduced  into 
the  Senate  the  subject  of  concert  with  foreign  nations 
to  put  down  the  slave-trade  ;  and  at  the  same  session 
a  more  stringent  act  was  passed  by  Congress  against 
the  trafific.  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  then  Secretary 
of  State,  in  replying  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  mentioned 
the  law  which  had  just  been  passed,  but  said  that 
"  the  admission  of  a  right  for  the  ofBcers  of  foreign 
ships  of  war  to  enter  and  search  the  vessels  of  the 
United  States  in  time  of  peace,  under  any  circum- 
stances whatever,  would  meet  with  universal  repug- 
nance in  the  public  opinion  of  the  country."  The 
two  nations  had  mercantile  navies  of  about  the  same 
tonnage,  but  the  war  navy  of  England  was  ten  times 
greater  than  that  of  the  United  States.  Our  com- 
merce would  have  been  subjected  to  far  more  inter- 
ruption than  the  commerce  of  England  could  possi- 
16 


242  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

bly  have  been.  •  It  was  not  so  much  the  search  for 
vessels  fitted  as  slavers  that  we  objected  to,  but  a  fear 
that  other  encroachments  might  be  made  under  this 
pretext.  For  this  fear  there  were  the  strongest  rea- 
sons. One  of  the  causes  of  the  war  of  i8 12,  besides 
the  violation  of  what  were  claimed  as  neutral  rights, 
was  the  impressment  of  British  seamen  from  Amer- 
ican ships ;  and  in  the  declaration  of  the  Prince  Re- 
gent he  spoke  of  the  right  of  impressing  British  sea- 
men as  one  which  came  into  operation  while  exercis- 
ing the  undoubted  and  undisputed  right  of  searching 
neutral  vessels  for  other  purposes. 

*'  If  a  similarity  of  language  and  manners  may  make  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  right  more  liable  to  partial  mistakes  and  occa- 
sional abuse  when  practised  toward  vessels  of  the  United 
States,  the  same  circumstances  make  it  also  a  right  with  the 
exercise  of  which,  in  regard  to  such  vessels,  it  is  more  difficult 
to  dispense." 

We  had  seen,  too,  the  consequences  of  such 
searches.  Two  American  vessels — the  Amedee  in 
1807,  and  the  Fortuna  in  181 1 — had  been  condemned 
by  the  English  Admiralty  courts,  not  because  they 
had  infringed  any  law  of  nations  or  any  rule  of  war, 
but  because  they  were  engaged  in  carrying  on  the 
slave-trade,  which  was  forbidden  by  municipal  law  in 
Great  Britain,  and  had  not  proved  that  they  were  en- 
gaged in  a  traffic  which  was  lawful  in  the  United 
States.     Another  vessel,  the  Diana,  was  restored  to 


THE  RIGHT  OF  SEARCH.  243 

its  Swedish  owners  because  Sweden  had  never  for- 
bidden the  slave-trade.  Much  as  we  in  this  country 
abhorred  the  slave-trade,  we  were  unwilling  to  have 
our  laws  carried  out  by  English  cruisers  and  English 
courts.  It  is  true  that  a  subsequent  decision  of  a 
contrary  nature  was  rendered  in  the  case  of  the  Louis 
in  181 7.  Without  referring  to  the  previous  decision, 
Lord  Stowell  decided  that  no  British  act  of  Parlia- 
ment, if  inconsistent  with  the  law  of  nations,  can  ef- 
fect the  rights  of  foreigners ;  that  the  right  of  visita- 
tion and  search  on  the  high  seas  did  not  exist  in 
time  of  peace;  and  that  trading  in  slaves  was  not 
piracy  nor  a  crime  by  the  universal  law  of  nations. 

This  principle,  however,  the  British  government 
attempted  to  introduce  into  international  law  by 
means  of  treaties.  While  negotiations  were  still  go- 
ing on  in  the  United  States,  the  meeting  of  sovereigns 
took  place  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  November,  18 18, 
and  Mr.  Clarkson,  the  advocate  of  abolition,  was  in- 
vited to  accompany  Lord  Castlereagh  and  present  a 
memoir  on  the  subject.  Lord  Castlereagh,  in  support- 
ing this  memorial,  proposed  a  general  concession  of 
the  reciprocal  right  of  search  and  the  capture  of  ves- 
sels belonging  to  powers  that  had  forbidden  the  slave- 
trade,  but  still  continued  it ;  and  second,  a  solemn 
proscription  of  the  slave-trade  as  piracy  under  inter- 
national law.  The  great  powers  replied  separately. 
France  rejected  the  proposition  and  suggested  a  com- 


244  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

mon  police  of  the  sea.  Russia,  Prussia,  and  Austria 
refused  to  denounce  the  slave-trade  as  piracy  so  long 
as  Portugal  or  any  other  civilized  state  continued  to 
allow  it.  They  also  rejected  absolutely  the  right  of 
search. 

At  the  Congress  of  Verona,  in  1822,  another  effort 
was  made  to  incorporate  this  important  principle  in 
the  law  of  nations ;  but  all  that  Mr.  Canning  could 
obtain  was  a  repetition  of  the  general  declarations 
made  at  Vienna  and  Aix-la-Chapelle. 

Meanwhile  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had 
in  1 8 19  passed  another  law,  declaring  that  the  im- 
portation of  slaves  should  be  punished  by  death  ;  and 
by  a  law  of  May  15,  1820,  declared  the  slave-trade  to 
be  piracy.  It  is  evident  that  the  word  piracy  here  is 
to  be  taken  in  a  different  sense  from  the  ordinary  one. 
So  far  as  the  United  States  were  concerned,  it  was 
municipal  and  not  international  piracy,  and  the  term 
was  used  for  the  convenience  of  trial  and  punishment ; 
/>.,  the  slave-trade  was  assimilated  piracy.  But  at 
the  same  time  it  is  evident  that  Congress  expected 
that  the  slave-trade  would  be  declared  piracy  under 
international  law  by  the  common  agreement  of  all 
nations,  and  that  in  this  way  any  questions  as  to  the 
right  of  search  might  be  avoided  ;  for  pirates,  being 
enemies  of  the  human  race,  can  be  attacked  anywhere 
and  everywhere;  and  the  search  of  vessels  under  sus- 
picion of  piracy  would,  if  they  were  innocent,  be  fol- 


THE   RIGHT  OF  SEARCH.  245 

lowed  by  proper  apology  and  compensation.  Public 
opinion  was  so  strongly  exercised  on  the  subject  of 
the  slave-trade  that  resolutions  on  the  subject  passed 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  1821,  1822,  and  1823, 
by  which  the  President  was  requested  to  enter  into 
arrangements  with  other  powers  for  the  abolition  of 
the  slave-trade;  and  in  1823,  when  the  vote  was 
nearly  unanimous,  a  clause  was  added,  proposing  its 
denunciation  as  piracy  under  the  law  of  nations.  We 
were  even  willing  to  overlook  our  objections  to  the 
right  of  search ;  though  a  clause  proposing  a  direct 
assent  to  it  was  rejected. 

Already  in  the  English  Parliament  of  July  9,  18 19, 
an  address  had  been  presented  to  the  Prince  Regent 
congratulating  him  on  his  efforts  to  suppress  the 
slave-trade,  speaking  in  very  complimentary  terms 
about  the  United  States,  and  urging  a  continuation 
of  negotiations,  especially  with  France  and  America. 
Efforts  to  obtain  the  right  of  search  from  the  United 
States  were  therefore  renewed,  and  on  December  20, 
1820,  Sir  Stratford  Canning,  the  British  minister, 
presented  a  note  to  Mr.  Adams  on  the  subject.  Ne- 
gotiations continued  between  Mr.  Adams  and  the 
British  minister,  without  result,  until  the  resolution 
of  1823,  just  mentioned,  when  the  conduct  of  negotia- 
tions was  transferred  to  Mr.  Rush  at  London ;  and  he 
finally,  on  March  13,  1824,  signed  a  treaty  with  Eng- 
land  denouncing   the   slave-trade   as   piracy   by  the 


246  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

laws  of  the  two  countries,  and  agreeing  to  exercise 
their  influence  with  other  maritime  nations  to  have  it 
denounced  as  piracy  according  to  international  law, 
but  stipulating  also  for  the  reciprocal  exercise  of  the 
right  of  search,  under  certain  restrictions,  by  vessels 
duly  authorized  by  the  instruction  of  their  respective 
governments  to  cruise  on  the  coasts  of  Africa,  America, 
and  the  West  Indies,  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave- 
trade.  Vessels  captured  were  to  be  tried  by  the  courts 
of  the  country  to  which  they  belonged,  and  not  by 
those  of  the  captor,  as  had  been  proposed  by  Eng- 
land. 

When  this  treaty  was  submitted  to  the  Senate  for 
approval  various  amendments  were  made.  The 
Senate  refused  to  submit  to  the  search  of  American 
vessels  on  the  coast  of  America,  as  also  to  try  as 
pirates  Americans  found  on  the  vessels  of  any  third 
power ;  and  another  article  was  also  proposed  allow- 
ing the  treaty  to  be  denounced  after  six  months'  no- 
tice. These  amendments  the  English  government 
refused  to  accept.  Mr.  Canning  was  especially  in- 
dignant with  the  omission  of  the  word  America^  say- 
ing that  he  should  have  never  signed  the  treaty  unless 
the  right  of  search  had  been  granted  for  the  coasts  of 
America  as  well  as  for  those  of  Africa  and  the  West 
Indies.  Mr.  Canning  also  took  ground  which  a  little 
reflection  would  have  shown  him  to  be  wrong,  that 
any   amendment   by   the  Senate   was   objectionable. 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  247 

The  treaty,  therefore,  was  not  finally  ratified,  and  all 
negotiations  were  suspended  for  some  time. 

Mr.  Adams  said  afterward  in  Congress,  about  this 
very  subject :  ^" 

"  I  returned  home  and  held  the  situation  of  Secretary  of 
State  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe,  and  was  the 
medium  through  which  the  proposal  of  the  British  govern- 
ment was  afterward  made.  I  resisted  and  opposed  it  in  the 
cabinet  with  all  my  power,  and  though  not  a  slave-holder  my- 
self, I  had  to  resist  the  slave -holding  members  of  the  cabinet, 
as  well  as  Mr.  Monroe  himself,  for  they  were  all  incHned  to 
concede  the  right.  I  maintained  my  ground  as  long  as  I  could, 
for  there  was  at  that  time  a  strong  inclination  in  Congress  also 
to  assent  to  the  proposal.  Not  a  session  passed  but  there  was 
a  proposition  to  request  the  President  to  negotiate  for  the  con- 
cession of  this  right  of  search.  .  .  .  Mercer  continued  to 
press  it  until,  finally,  in  1822,  he  brought  the  Houseby  yeas  and 
nays  to  vote  their  assent  to  it ;  and,  strange  to  say,  there  were 
but  nine  votes  against  it.  The  same  thing  took  place  in  the 
other  House  ;  the  joint  resolution  went  to  the  President,  and 
he,  accordingly,  entered  into  the  negotiation.  It  was  utterly 
against  my  judgment  and  wishes  ;  but  I  was  obliged  to  submit, 
and  I  prepared  the  requisite  despatches  to  Mr.  Rush,  when 
he  made  his  proposal  to  Mr.  Canning.  Mr.  Canning's  reply 
was,  *  Draw  up  your  convention,  and  I  will  sign  it.'  Mr.  Rush 
did  so  ;  and  Mr.  Canning,  without  the  slightest  alteration 
whatever,  without  varying  the  dot  of  an  z,  or  the  crossing  of  a 
/,  did  affix  to  it  his  signature  ;  thus  assenting  to  our  own  terms 
in  our  own  language. 

"  But  as  to  the  right  of  search,  in  the  bitterness  of  my  soul 

*  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  April  14,  1842,  Congressional  Globe,  27th 
Congress,  2cl  Session,  p.  424, 


248  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

I  say  it  was  conceded  by  all  the  authorities  of  this  nation.  I 
say  this  because  I  am  not  now  for  conceding  it." 

In  1831-33  Great  Britain  obtained  from  France  a 
concession  of  the  right  of  search  under  certain  limita- 
tions, and  gained  also  the  adhesion  to  these  treaties  of 
Denmark  and  Sardinia  in  1834;  of  the  Hanse  towns 
and  Tuscany  in  1837  ;  of  Naples  in  1838  ;  andof  Hayti 
in  1839.  In  this  last  year  (1839)  the  English  govern- 
ment complained  that  the  Portuguese  had  never  execut- 
ed the  stipulations  of  their  treaty,  and  still  continued 
the  slave-trade.  Apparently  despairing  of  obtaining 
the  principles  for  which  they  contended  by  general  as- 
sent, and  feeling  strong  by  the  co-operation  they  had 
thus  far  obtained,  they  undertook  to  enforce  them  by 
an  act  of  Parliament,  and  a  law  was  passed  to  execute 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty  with  Portugal  by  means 
of  English  vessels.  By  this  law  any  Portuguese  vessels 
engaged  in  the  slave-trade,  or  any  vessel  that  could 
not  establish  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  she 
was  justly  entitled  to  claim  the  protection  of  the  flag 
of  any  state  or  nation,  could  be  condemned  by  a 
British  admiralty  court.  The  Duke  of  Wellington, 
who  had  opposed  all  such  proceedings,  and  had  main- 
tained that  if  Portugal  had  violated  any  treaty,  re- 
dress was  to  be  obtained  by  negotiations,  asked, 

"  Was  it  intended  that  the  vessels  of  any  power  in  Europe 
might  be  searched  and  afterward  allowed  to  proceed  on  their 
voyage,  whether  we  had  treaties  with  those  powers  or  not  ? " 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  249 

Lord  Melbourne  replied  that 

''  The  bill  did  not  bind  her  Majesty  to  adopt  those  measures  ; 
that  it  was  for  her  Majesty  to  apportion  her  measures  to  meet 
the  necessities  of  the  case." 

Even  on  the  third  reading  of  the  bill  the  Duke  of 
Wellington  protested  against  its  passage,  and  made 
special  reference  to  the  United  States,  as  nothing 
went  to  show  the  least  disposition  on  the  part  of 
America  to  permit  the  right  of  detention  and  search 
for  papers.  He  said  that  the  measure  still  exhibited 
its  criminal  character  ;  it  was  a  breach  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions and  a  violation  of  international  treaties.  Shortly 
after  the  bill  had  passed  Parliament,  the  Republic  of 
Hayti  attempted  to  put  into  effect  a  similar  law  for 
capturing  slave-traders  off  the  Haytian  coast,  and 
bringing  them  into  its  ports  for  adjudication.  Lord 
Palmerston  declared  this  entirely  unauthorized  and 
impossible  to  allow,  as  no  state  had  the  right,  without 
special  treaties,  to  visit,  search,  or  detain  vessels  be- 
longing to  any  other  power,  even  though  they  were 
actually  engaged  in  the  slave-trade.  Yet,  at  almost 
the  same  time,  this  claim  was  brought  forward  by 
Lord  Palmerston  against  the  United  States,  and  in  a 
note  dated  August  27,  1841,  to  Mr.  Stevenson,  our 
minister,  he  explicitly  claimed  a  right,  which  he 
avowed  the  intention  of  his  government  to  continue 
to  exercise,  that  British  cruisers  could  examine  our 
vessels  with  a  view  of  ascertaining  by  inspection  of 


250  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

papers  their  nationality  ;  and  claimed  that  the  United 
States  flag  could  only  exempt  a  vessel  from  search 
when  that  vessel  was  provided  with  papers  entitling 
her  to  wear  that  flag,  and  proving  her  to  be  United 
States'  property,  and  navigated  according  to  law. 
Mr.  Stevenson  showed  that  the  English  claims  were 
incompatible  with  the  law  of  nations,  as  expounded  in 
their  own  country.  Lord  Aberdeen,  who  had  suc- 
ceeded Lord  Palmerston,  in  his  reply  of  October, 
1 84 1,  intimated  that  Lord  Stowell's  decisions  were  no 
longer  of  authority ;  and  that  the  change  of  circum- 
stances, by  the  happy  concurrence  of  the  states  of 
Christendom  in  a  good  object,  not  merely  justifies, 
but  renders  indispensable,  the  right  now  claimed  and 
exercised  by  the  British  government.  He  observed 
that  the  vessels  were  not  visited  as  American  vessels, 
but  only  as  being  suspected  of  belonging  to  some 
nation  with  which  England  had  treaties,  and  fraudu- 
lently carrying  American  colors.  This  view  is  a  dis- 
tinction too  fine  for  practice,  for,  as  Mr.  Wheaton 
justly  observes, 

"  Neither  is  the  neutral  vessel  visited  in  time  of  war,  as 
neutral ;  but  she  is  ever  visited,  and  captured,  and  detained, 
and  carried  in  for  adjudication,  as  being  suspected  to  be  an 
enemy,  either  literally  such,  or  as  having  forfeited  her  neutral 
character  by  violating  her  neutral  duties."  * 
In  his  subsequent  correspondence  with  Mr.  Everett, 
Lord  Aberdeen  endeavored  to  make  another  point, 
*  Enquiry,  p.  143. 


THE   RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  2$  I 

that  the  right  of  visit  claimed  by  the  English  was  not 
the  same  as  the  right  of  search  practised  toward 
neutral  vessels  in  time  of  war.  It  was,  however, 
plainly  shown  by  international  authorities,  and  even 
by  English  decisions,  that  what  in  French  was  termed 
droit  de  visite  had  been  translated  into  English  either 
"  right  of  visit,"  or  "  right  of  search,"  and  that  there 
could  be  no  distinction  between  a  visit  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  the  true  character  of  a  ship,  and 
a  visit  with  a  search  to  ascertain  whether  it  was 
strictly  performing  its  neutral  duties.  As  Mr.  Law- 
rence says  : 

*'  If  the  proposition  of  the  British  government  was  tenable,  we 
were  in  much  worse  position  than  if  we  had  actually  conceded 
the  right  of  search.  In  the  treaties  made  with  other  powers, 
there  were  limits  as  to  the  time  when  and  where  the  visitation 
for  the  examination  of  papers  may  be  made  ;  and  the  right 
of  detention  is  confined  to  certain  cruisers  specially  authorized. 
In  our  case,  if  admitted  at  all,  it  would  be  equally  competent 
for  any  ship  of  war,  and  if  English  ships  have  the  right,  all 
others  possess  it,  to  visit  and  detain  any  merchant-man  at  any 
time  and  in  any  part  of  the  ocean."  * 

President  Tyler  had  already  met  the  attempt  to 
bind  us  by  the  acts  of  other  states  in  his  message  of 
December  7,  1841,  in  which  he  declared  that 

"  The  United  States  cannot  consent  to  interpolations  into 
the  maritime  code  at  the  mere  will  and  pleasure  of  other  gov- 
ernments.    When  we  are  given  to  understand,  as  in  this  in- 

*  Visitation  and  Search,  p.  41. 


252  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

stance,  by  a  foreign  government,  that  its  treaties  with  other 
nations  cannot  be  executed  without  the  estabhshment  and  en- 
forcement of  new  principles  of  maritime  police,  to  be  em- 
ployed without  our  consent,  we  must  employ  language  neither 
of  equivocal  import  nor  susceptible  of  misconstruction. 
Whether  this  Government  should  now  enter  into  treaties  con- 
taining mutual  stipulations  upon  this  subject  is  a  question  for 
its  mature  deliberation.  Certain  it  is,  that  if  the  right  to  de- 
tain American  ships  on  the  high  seas  can  be  justified  on  the 
plea  of  a  necessity  for  such  detention  arising  out  of  the  exist- 
ence of  treaties  between  other  nations,  the  same  plea  may  be 
extended  and  enlarged  by  the  new  stipulations  of  new  treaties 
to  which  the  United  States  may  not  be  a  party." 

There  seemed  danger  that  the  English  pretensions 
would  find  strong  support  on  the  Continent,  for  on 
December  20,  1841,  the  very  date  of  Lx)rd  Aberdeen's 
letter  to  Mr.  Everett,  England  had  persuaded  Austria, 
Russia,  Prussia,  and  France  to  sign  a  treaty  by  which 
these  four  powers  agreed  to  adopt  the  English  laws 
relating  to  the  slave-trade,  which  was  declared  piracy, 
and  all  five  mutually  conceded  to  each  other  a  quali- 
fied right  of  search.  Such  a  treaty  was  of  course  a 
mere  formality,  for  the  Mediterranean  was  specially 
excluded,  and  no  ships  belonging  to  Austria,  Russia, 
or  Prussia  had  ever  been  engaged  in  the  slave-trade 
or  were  ever  captured  by  British  vessels.  Fortu- 
nately our  minister  in  Paris  at  that  time  was  General 
Lewis  Cass,  a  man  of  great  experience,  of  decided 
views,  and  who  had  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  very  in- 
timate and  friendly  footing  with  the  French  govern- 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  253 

ment.  He  took  the  responsibility  of  acting-  without 
instructions,  presented  to  M.  Guizot  a  copy  of  the 
President's  message  and  the  correspondence  on  this 
subject  with  England,  and  called  the  attention  of  the 
French  government  to  the  grave  consequences,  not 
only  to  America  but  to  France,  which  might  result 
from  a  ratification  of  the  treaty.  In  this  action  Gen- 
eral Cass  was  supported  by  some  of  the  most  eminent 
statesmen  of  France.  His  letter  was  laid  before  the 
King  and  Council ;  both  MM.  Guizot  and  Thiers  had 
full  conversations  with  him  on  the  subject,  and  the 
result  was  that  France  refused  to  ratify  the  quintuple 
treaty. 

General  Cass'  action  was  warmly  approved  by  our 
Government,  but  it  was  as  heartily  disliked  by  the 
English  government ;  and  Lord  Brougham,  who  had 
been  very  prominent  in  all  these  disputes,  took  occa- 
sion, in  a  debate  a  year  afterward,  on  the  subject  of 
the  Ashburton  treaty,  to  revile  General  Cass  in  terms 
which,  fortunately,  nowadays  no  English  member  of 
Parliament  would  use  in  speaking  of  an  official  of  even 
the  smallest  st^f e." 

*  Said  Lord  Brougham,  on  April  7,  1843  :  "  There  was  one 
man  who  was  the  very  impersonation  of  mob  hostility  to  Eng- 
land— General  Cass — whose  breach  of  duty  to  his  own  Govern- 
ment was  so  discreditable,  and  even  more  flagrant  than  his 
breach  of  duty  to  humanity  as  a  man,  and  as  the  free  descend- 
ant of  Enghsh  parents,  and  whose  conduct  in  all  these  particu- 
lars it  was  impossible  to  pass  over  or  palliate.     This  person, 


2  54  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Immediately — for  the  quintuple  treaty  had  failed  of 
its  main  object  in  not  being  ratified  by  France,  through 
General  Cass'  interference — Lord  Ashburton  was  sent 
to  the  United  States  to  negotiate  a  treaty  settling  sev- 
eral important  questions  in  dispute  between  the  two 
governments.  The  treaty  was  made  and  ratified. 
The  question  of  visitation  and  search  was  apparently 
never  mentioned  during  the  negotiations.  Instead  of 
this  our  Government  bound  itself  to  keep  a  squadron 
carrying  not  less  than  eighty  guns  on  the  African 
coast,  in  connection  with  the  British  squadron,  but 

who  had  been  sent  to  maintain  peace,  and  to  reside  at  Paris 
for  that  purpose,  after  pacific  relations  had  been  established 
between  France  and  America,  did  his  best  to  break  it,  whether 
by  the  circulation  of  statements  upon  the  question  of  inter- 
national law,  of  which  he  had  no  more  conception  than  of  the 
languages  that  were  spoken  in  the  moon,  or  by  any  other  argu- 
ments of  reason,  for  which  he  had  no  more  capacity  than  he 
had  for  understanding  legal  points  and  differences.  .  . 
For  that  purpose  he  was  not  above  pandering  to  the  worst 
mob  feeling." 

General  Cass  replied,  in  the  Senate,  only  on  February  lo, 
1846: 

*'  Lord  Brougham  did  not  always  talk  thus — not  when  one  of 
his  friends  applied  to  mc  in  Paris  to  remove  (^rtain  unfavorable 
impressions  made  in  a  high  quarter  by  one  of  those  imprudent 
and  impulsive  remarks,  which  seem  to  belong  to  his  moral 
habits.  The  effort  was  successful.  And  now  my  account  of 
good  for  evil  with  Lord  Brougham  is  balanced. 

"  It  is  an  irksome  task  to  cull  expressions  like  these  and  re- 
peat them  here.  I  hold  them  up  not  as  a  warning — that  is  not 
needed — but  to  repel  the  intimation  that  we  ought  to  study  the 
courtesies  of  our  position  in  the  British  Parliament." 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  255 

independently  thereof.  When  General  Cass  was 
asked  to  communicate  this  treaty  to  the  French  gov- 
ernment, he  complied  with  his  instructions,  but  re- 
signed, on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  been  properly 
supported  by  his  own  Government  in  the  question  of 
the  right  of  search,  and  in  writing  to  Mr.  Webster  he 
took  occasion  to  explain  his  objections  to  the  treaty 
on  the  ground  that  no  article  had  been  inserted  es- 
pecially refusing  the  right  of  search.  He  feared  lest 
England  might  construe  this  omission  into  an  admis- 
sion by  the  United  States  of  her  claims.  Mr.  Web- 
ster replied,  and  a  bitter  correspondence  ensued. 
What  General  Cass  had  said  had  been  substantially 
said  in  the  debates  in  the  Senate  on  the  ratification  of 
the  treaty,  and  events  soon  proved  General  Cass  in 
the  right  and  Mr.  Webster  in  the  wrong.^  President 
Tyler,  in  his  message  of  August  ii,  1842,  communicat- 
ing the  treaty  to  the  Senate,  sustained  the  provision 
for  the  African  squadron  on  the  ground  that  this  was 
a  substitute  for  visitation  and  search  ;  and  in  his  next 
annual  message  said  that  the  ground  assumed  in  the 
former  message  Itad  been  maintained,  and  all  pretence 
removed  from  interference  with  our  commerce  for  any 
purpose  whatever  by  any   foreign   government.     As 

*  The  correspondence  between  General  Cass  and  Mr.  Web- 
ster will  be  found  partly  in  Webster's  Works,  and  the  re- 
mainder in  the  Life  of  Cass.  The  Letters  and  Times  of  the 
Tylers  also  contain  some  interesting  statements  and  letters  on 
this  subject. 


256  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

soon  as  these  statements  reached  England,  the  British 
government  showed  their  view  on  the  subject.  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  then  Prime  Minister,  said  : 

"  With  respect  to  the  treaty  lately  signed  between  this  coun- 
try and  the  United  States,  I  say,  that  in  acting  upon  that  treaty 
we  have  not  abandoned  our  claim  to  the  right  of  visitation, 
nor  do  we  understand  that  in  signing  that  treaty  the  United 
States  could  suppose  that  the  claim  was  abandoned." 

The  British  minister,  Mr.  Fox,  was  directed  to  read 
to  the  Secretary  of  State  a  despatch  from  Lord  Aber- 
deen, in  which  it  was  stated  that  from  the  principles 
which  she  had  constantly  asserted,  and  which  are  re- 
corded in  the  correspondence  of  1841,  England  had 
not  receded  and  would  not  recede.  The  matter  was 
submitted  to  Congress,  and  subsequently  Mr.  Web- 
ster, in  his  instructions  to  Mr.  Everett,  dated  March 
28,  1843,  reviewed  the  whole  question  with  great  abil- 
ity, and  ended  by  saying  : 

"  The  Government  of  the  United  States  does  not  admit  that 
by  the  law  and  practice  of  nations  there  is  any  such  thing  as  a 
right  of  visit  distinguished  by  well-known  rules  and  definitions 
from  a  right  of  search." 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  views  of  the  Govern- 
ment were  not  put  forward  by  Mr.  Webster  in  this 
way  at  the  time  when  they  would  have  been  pecu- 
liarly forcible,  that  is,  during  the  negotiations  for  the 
treaty. 

All   the    important   writers   on    international    law 


THE   RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  2 5/ 

agree   with   the   position    taken    up    by   the    United 
States.     De  Cussy  says  : 

*'  The  extension  of  the  right  of  visitation  and  search  in  time 
of  peace  will  be  the  commencement  of  a  system  for  the  do- 
minion of  the  sea,  by  means  of  the  abuses  to  which  visitation 
and  search  would  give  rise,  by  confounding  intentionally  all 
the  distinctions  of  times  and  circumstances,  of  peace  and  war, 
and  all  the  rights  applicable  to  the  two  different  situations,  the 
one  regular  and  the  other  forced  and  temporary."  * 

In  discussing  particularly  our  own  actions,  he  says  : 

*'  The  United  States  manifested  under  these  circumstances, 
in  the  highest  degree,  the  sentiment  of  respect  which  every 
nation  ought  to  feel  for  the  independence  of  its  flag  and  for  its 
own  dignity  as  a  sovereign  state.  The  other  powers,  carried 
away  by  the  philanthropic  sentiment  which  had  induced  them 
to  sign  the  treaty  of  1841,  seemed  to  have  forgotten  that  they 
were  favoring  the  strongest  passion  of  England — her  dominion 
of  the  sea.  Was  it  not  to  go  beyond  all  her  hopes  to  grant  to 
her  numerous  ships  of  war  a  right  of  visitation  and  search  in 
time  of  peace,  in  exchange  for  the  same  right  received  by  the 
very  inconsiderable  navies  of  Russia,  Austria,  and  Prussia,  and 
of  the  other  maritime  states  which  had  acceded  to  the  treaty 
of  i84i?"t 

The  action  of  Parliament  in  1845  is  a  striking  ex- 
ample of  how  far  England  was  willing  to  go  in  this 
direction.  The  treaty  of  181 7  made  with  Portugal, 
by  which  Brazil,  after  becoming  independent,  had 
bound  itself  in  1826,  expired  by  its  own  provisions  in 
1845  ;  and  this  fact,  and  the  termination  of  the  mixed 

*  Droit  Maritime^  tom.  ii.,  p.  385.  f  Ibid.,  p.  364. 

J7 


258  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

commission  under  the  treaty,  had  been  duly  notified 
to  the  English  government  by  Brazil.  Yet  under 
the  pretext  that  the  treaty  had  provided  that,  three 
years  after  its  ratification,  the  slave-trade  in  Brazil 
should  be  utterly  abolished  and  treated  as  piracy, 
the  British  Parliament  passed  an  act  in  August,  1845, 
giving  jurisdiction  to  British  admiralty  courts  over 
any  vessel  engaged  in  the  slave-trade  with  Brazil. 
English  cruisers  even  entered  Brazilian  harbors  and 
rivers  and  burned,  when  they  could  not  cut  out,  Bra- 
zilian ships. 

By  1849  England  had  succeeded  in  making  twenty- 
four  treaties  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave-trade,  ten 
of  which  established  mixed  courts,  and  all  of  which, 
except  those  of  France  and  the  United  States,  per- 
mitted a  mutual  right  of  search.  During  the  Cri- 
mean War  the  British  were  unable  to  exercise  the 
same  vigilance  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  and  the  slave- 
trade  greatly  revived.  After  this,  British  cruisers 
were  very  active,  not  only  on  the  African  coast, 
but  even  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  there  were 
numerous  complaints  that  American  vessels,  some  of 
them  entirely  innocent,  had  been  overhauled  and 
searched  by  the  British.  Complaints  in  each  case 
were  presented  to  the  English  government,  which  ex- 
plained that  no  stricter  instructions  had  been  given 
than  those  which  had  been  for  many  years  in  force. 
The  reasons  for  the  greater  vigor  following  these  in- 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  259 

structions  were  very  simple — the  amount  of  prize- 
money  which  every  capture  brought  to  the  takers. 
The  ship  and  its  cargo  were  forfeited,  and  the  pro- 
ceeds divided  among  the  officers  and  crew  of  the  ves- 
sel which  captured  it.  Unless  in  some  rare  case, 
even  the  slaves  were  not  restored  to  their  native 
country,  but  were  held  to  service  for  sixteen  years,  on 
government  account,  in  whatever  colony  the  ship 
might  be  condemned,  in  order  to  pay  the  expenses 
of  their  rescue.  Thus,  from  their  great  zeal  in  put- 
ting down  piracy,  the  British  cruisers  began  to  com- 
mit, themselves,  something  very  near  piracy.  It  be- 
came quite  common  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  whenever 
a  vessel,  supposed  to  be  a  slaver,  showed  American 
colors,  for  a  British  officer  to  board  her  and  suggest 
to  the  captain  that  in  case  he  were  engaged  in  the 
slave-trade  it  might  be  more  convenient  for  him  per- 
sonally— as  the  penalty  for  the  slave-trade  was  death 
by  the  laws  of  the  United  States — to  throw  his  papers 
ovetboard,  and  allow  his  vessel  to  be  taken  as  with- 
out papers,  by  which  it  would  be  tried  before  a  Brit- 
ish court,  and  only  the  ship  and  cargo  condemned, 
while  the  officers  and  crew  would  go  free. 

The  French  convention  of  1845  with  England, 
which  was  signed  after  a  warm  parliamentary  discus- 
sion, to  take  the  place  of  those  of  183 1  and  1833,  was 
limited  in  duration  to  ten  years,  and  the  French  re- 
fused to  consent  to  its  continuance  beyond  that  point ; 


260  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

SO  that  in  1857,  the  time  at  which  we  have  now  ar- 
rived, this  was  inoperaive,  and  France  was  allowed 
to  take  her  own  measures  for  punishing  French  slave- 
traders.  Although  the  article  of  our  treaty  of  1842, 
providing  for  an  American  squadron  on  the  coast  of 
Africa,  might  have  been  abrogated  after  five  years,  it 
was  not ;  and  its  execution  was  insisted  on  in  a  note 
from  Lord  Napier  to  General  Cass,  then  Secretary  of 
State,  as  late  as  December  24,  1857,  and  this,  too, 
when  the  British  commanders  had  done  all  they 
could  to  render  our  squadron  useless,  by  persuading 
American  captains  found  delinquent  to  throw  over- 
board their  American  papers  and  surrender  to  British 
ships.  In  Lord  Napier's  note  was  a  remark  referring 
to  the  hoisting  of  the  American  flag  : 

"  This  precaution  does  not  prevent  the  slaver  from  visit, 
but  it  exonerates  him  from  search." 

It  was  undoubtedly  agreeable  to  General  Cass  that, 
after  the  action  he  had  taken  when  minister  to  France 
in  1842,  he  could  now  be  the  means  of  effectually 
preventing  all  further  British  claims  in  this  respect. 
In  his  reply  of  April  10,  1858,  he  said  : 

*'The  distinction  taken  between  the  right  of  visitation  and 
the  right  of  search,  between  an  entry  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
amining into  the  national  character  of  a  vessel  and  an  entry 
for  examining  into  the  objects  of  her  voyage,  cannot  be  justly 
maintained  upon  any  recognized  principles  of  the  law  of  nations. 
The  United  States  deny  the  right  to  the  cruisers  of  any  power 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  26 1 

whatever  to  enter  their  vessels  by  force  in  time  of  peace, 
much  less  can  they  permit  foreign  officers  to  examine  their 
papers  and  adjudicate  upon  their  nationality,  and  whether  they 
are  navigated  according  to  law.  No  change  of  name  can 
change  the  legal  character  of  the  assumption.  Search  or  visit, 
it  is  equally  an  assault  upon  the  independence  of  nations."  * 

In  May,  1858,  General  Cass  was,  on  two  occasions, 
obliged  to  bring  the  subject  of  boarding  American 
vessels  by  British  officers  to  the  attention  of  the 
British  government ;  and  in  transmitting  a  list  of 
American  vessels  which  had  been  boarded  he  called 
particular  attention  to  the  search  of  one  in  the  har- 
bor of  Sagua  la  Grande  in  Cuba. 

On  the  24th  of  May  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  in  the  Senate  made  a  report  aboiit  the  out- 
rages recently  committed  on  American  vessels,  and 
on  the  15th  of  June  resolutions  were  adopted  unani- 
mously on  the  subject,  protesting  against  these  acts 
and  approving  of  the  action  of  the  Executive  in 
sending  a  naval  force  into  the  infested  seas,  with 
orders  to  protect  all  vessels  of  the  United  States  on 
the  high  seas  from  search  or  detention  by  the  vessels 
of  war  of  any  other  nation.  The  strongest  anti- 
slavery  men,  such  as  Mr.  Seward,  Mr.  Hale,  and  Mr. 
Wilson,  were  as  firm  and  vigorous  in  their  expressions 
as  any  slave-holder  from  the  South. 

This  looked  very  much  like  war,  and  in  the  debates 

*  35th  Congress,  ist  Session,  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  49,  p.  49. 


262  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

in  Parliament  on  June  17th  and  i8th  it  appeared 
that  the  British  government,  after  taking  the  advice 
of  its  law  officers,  had  determined  to  give  up  all  claim 
to  any  right  of  visitation,  even  without  the  substitu- 
tion of  any  convention  in  its  place.  Lord  Napier 
was  indeed  instructed  to  state  to  General  Cass  that 
the  British  government  entirely  agreed  with  his  state- 
ment of  doctrine  on  the  subject.  There  still  being, 
however,  some  question  on  the  subject  in  the  news- 
papers, and  even  apparently  a  little  quibbling  in  Par- 
liament, Mr.  Dallas,  the  American  minister  at  London, 
in  a  speech  made  on  July  4th  at  a  banquetof  Ameri- 
cans, announced  to  his  countrymen  that 

''Visit  and  search,  in  regard  to  American  vessels  on  the  high 
seas  in  time  of  peace,  is  finally  ended." 

Mr.  Dallas,  in  a  letter  to  General  Cass,  says  : 

*'  The  slight  doubt  hinted  in  some  newspapers  as  to  the 
question  of  the  renunciation  of  the  boarding  question  and  the 
reticence  of  the  ministerial  grandees  when  interrogated, 
seemed  to  make  it  important  that  the  exact  character  of  what 
has  been  done  should  be  fixed  before  Parliament  adjourns, 
and  before  the  possible  contingency  of  a  change  from  Derby  to 
Palmerston  can  take  place.  The  post-prandial  device  worked 
to  a  charm,  and  Lords  Lyndhurst  and  Malmesbury  have  left 
nothing  to  desire  in  their  public  and  precise  avowals."  * 

In  the  House  of  Lords,  on  July  26th,  Lord  Lynd- 
hurst asked  for  the  correspondence  with  the  United 

*Mr.  Dallas  to  Mr.  Cass,  July  30,  1858,  Dallas'  Letters  from 
London,  p.  39. 


THE  RIGHT   OF  SEARCH.  263 

States  on  this  question.  He  spoke  of  Mr.  Dallas' 
speech,  saying  that  some  persons  in  high  positions 
had  considered  the  proceeding  not  justified,  and  that 
a  most  important  and  valuable  right  had  been  sacri- 
ficed. 

"  We  have  surrendered,"  he  said,  ''  no  right  at  all,  for  no 
such  right  as  that  contended  for  has  ever  existed.  We  have 
abandoned  the  assumption  of  a  right,  and  in  doing  so  we  have 
acted  justly,  prudently,  and  wisely.  I  think  it  is  of  great  im- 
portance that  this  question  should  be  distinctly  and  finally  un- 
derstood and  settled.  By  no  writer  on  international  law  has 
this  right  ever  been  asserted.  There  is  no  decision  of  any 
court  of  justice,  having  jurisdiction  to  decide  such  questions, 
in  which  that  right  has  ever  been  admitted." 

Here  it  might  be  supposed  that  this  long-continued 
dispute  had  ended  ;  but  four  years  afterward,  in  1862 
(April  7),  Mr.  Seward  accepted  the  proposition  of  the 
English  government  for  a  more  stringent  treaty  on 
the  subject  of  putting  down  the  slave-trade,  and  ac- 
cepted the  mutual  right  of  search  for  that  purpose. 
We  were  then  engaged  in  putting  down  the  rebellion. 
Mr.  Seward  probably  supposed  that  in  accepting  this 
proposition  he  would  conciliate  England  to  our  side 
of  the  dispute ;  at  the  same  time  Mr.  Seward  was  no 
doubt  influenced  by  his  feelings  against  slavery.  Such 
was  certainly  the  case  with  Mr.  Sumner,  whose  speech 
in  the  Senate,  when  the  treaty  was  presented  for  ap- 
proval, is  one  of  the  few  authentic  records  of  that 
event. 


264  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

There  had,  indeed,  just  before  the  war,  been  an 
outbreak  of  the  slave-trade.  Up  to  that  time  slavers 
had  generally  been  fitted  out  in  English  ports,  but  in 
1859  and  i860  the  headquarters  of  the  business  was 
in  New  York.  There  had  been  an  acrimonious  de- 
bate on  the  subject  in  Congress,  though  a  law  pro- 
posing additional  penalties  had  been  defeated,  and  on 
February  21,  1862,  Nathaniel  Gordon,  the  commander 
of  the  slave-ship  Erie,  was  executed  at  New  York. 
This  was  the  only  case  in  which  the  punishment  of 
death  had  been  applied  in  this  country. 

This  treaty  provided  also  for  mixed  courts,  and, 
when  the  law  for  carrying  the  treaty  into  effect  came 
up  in  the  Senate,  one  or  two  senators  opposed  it  on 
the  ground  that  the  treaty,  for  this  reason,  never  should 
have  been  made ;  but  nothing  was  especially  said 
about  the  right  of  search.  The  treaty  was  a  useless 
concession  to  Great  Britain,  for  it  did  not  purchase 
the  benevolent  neutrality  of  that  government.  Not 
a  single  case  was  ever  tried  in  any  of  the  mixed  courts, 
for  the  slave-trade  had  died  out  ;  and  in  1869  Con- 
gress asked  the  President  to  obtain  the  consent  of 
Great  Britain  to  the  abolition  of  these  courts.  An 
additional  treaty  was  made  in  1870,  by  which  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  mixed  courts  was  transferred  to 
the  admiralty  courts  of  the  contracting  parties,  British 
vessels  to  be  judged  in  British  courts,  and  American 
vessels  in  American  courts  at  New  York  or  Key  West. 


VI. 

THE    FREE    NAVIGATION    OF    RIVERS 
AND    SEAS. 


^.— THE    MISSISSIPPI. 

Mr.  Jay's  Negotiations  in  Spain  in  1780. — Our  Claim. — Gar^ 
doqui  in  America. — Different  Views  of  the  Northern  and 
Southern  States  about  the  Importance  of  the  Mississippi. — 
Carmichael  and  Short  at  Madrid. — Objections  to  them. 
— Thomas  Pinckney  sent  to  Madrid. — Treaty  of  1795. — ■ 
Godoy's  Opinion. — Spanish  Protest  against  our  Treaty 
with  Great  Britain. — Incident  of  1802. — Final  Settlement 
by  the  Acquisition  of  Louisiana  and  the  Floridas. 

/  The  efforts  of  our  Government  to  secure  for  the 
commerce  of  its  citizens  the  free  navigation  of  rivers 
and  seas  have  been  constant,  systematic,  and  remark- 
able, beginning  even  before  we  had  obtained  our  in- 
dependence. There  had  been  difficulties  between  the 
Catholic  provinces  of  the  Netherlands  and  Holland 
with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  the  Scheldt  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century ;  but  the  United 
States  were  the  first  to  insist,  as  a  matter  of  interna- 
tional law,  that  the  people  who  live  along  the  upper 

i 


266  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

waters  of  a  river  have  a  natural  right  to  sail  to  the  sea 
through  the  dominions  of  other  powers.  The  rights 
claimed  by  the  United  States  were  laid  down  as  part 
of  the  public  law  of  Europe  by  the  Congress  of 
Vienna,  but  the  credit  of  having  first  proclaimed  them 
belongs  to  the  United  States  alone. 
I  As  early  as  December  30,  1776,.  Congress  passed  a 
resolution  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  treaty  with 
Spain,  agreeing  that  if  Spain  should  join  them  in  the 
war  against  Great  Britain  they  would  assist  in  reduc- 
ing to  the  possession  of  Spain  the  town  and  harbor  of 
Pensacola,  then  held  by  England,  provided  the  in- 
habitants of  the  United  States  should  have  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  use  of  the  harbor 
of  Pensacola.  Mr.  Arthur  Lee  visited  Spain  at  the 
request  of  Franklin  and  Deane,  but  he  had  no  special 
appointment,  and  appears  to  have  had  no  other  ob- 
ject than  to  obtain  money  and  supplies.  The  first 
regular  minister  of  the  United  States  to  Spain  was 
Mr.  John  Jay,  who  was  appointed  in  1779  to  negoti- 
ate a  treaty,  and  was  instructed  to  guarantee  the  two 
Floridas  on  condition  that  the  free  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi   should   be   obtained     for   this   country."^ 


*  This  whole  subject  has  been  excellendy  treated  by  Mr. 
Theodore  Lyman,  in  his  book  the  Diplomacy  of  the  United 
States,  and  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Trescot  in  his  two  volumes  the 
Diplomacy  of  the  Revolution  and  the  Diplomatic  History  of 
the  United  States  during  the  Administration  of  Washington 


FREE   NAVIGATION   OF  RIVERS.  26^ 

The  great  obstacle  to  the  recognition  of  Mr.  Jay  on 
the  part  of  Spain  was  the  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
sippi. '  The  Spanish  government  desired  to  make  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  a  closed  sea  from  Florida  to  Yucatan, 
into  which  the  ships  of  other  nations  could  not  pene- 
trate, the  whole  commerce  being  reserved  for  Span- 
iards. The  Count  Florida  Blanca,  on  September  23, 
1780,  said  with  warmth, 

"  That  unless  Spain  could  exclude  all  nations  from  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico,  they  might  as  well  admit  all ;  that  the  King  would 
never  relinquish  that  object  ;  that  the  ministry  regarded  it  as 
the  principal  thing  to  be  obtained  by  the  war ;  and  that  ob- 
tained he  should  be  easy  whether  Spain  obtained  other  ces- 
sions or  not.  The  acquisition  was  much  more  important  than 
that  of  Gibraltar." 

Mr.  Jay  remained  in  Madrid  until  May,  1782,  but 
he  was  never  received  in  his  official  character,  for 
Spain  had  not  yet  formally  acknowledged  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States,  nor  could  he  nego- 
tiate continuously  with  regard  to  the  proposed  treaty. 
Although  he  upheld  in  the  strongest  manner  the 
claims  of  the  United  States  to  the  navigation  of  the 
Mississippi,  and  even  to  having  a  free  port  accessible 
to  merchant  ships  below  the  thirty-third  degree  of 
north  latitude,  or  about  that,  for,  on  account  of  the 

and  Jefferson.  Mr.  John  Bach  McMaster,  in  his  History  of 
the  American  People  has  shown  the  popular  feeling  called  out 
by  the  negotiation.     I  can  add  nothing  new. 


268  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

peculiarities  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  necessity  of 
changing  goods  into  sea-going  vessels,  the  simple 
right  of  navigation  would  be  of  no  use;  yet  he  seems 
always  to  have  considered  it  doubtful  whether  the 
United  States  would  not  be  compelled  to  relinquish 
their  claim  to  the  Mississippi  in  order  to  obtain  the 
recognition  of  their  independence.  The  question 
was  complicated  by  our  desire  to  obtain  pecuniary 
assistance  from  Spain  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on 
the  war,  and  on  September  3,  1780,  Jay  said  to  Gar- 
doqui,  who  had  proposed  the  navigation  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi as  a  consideration  for  aids, 

"That  the  Americans,  ahnost  to  a  man,  believed  that  God 
Almighty  had  made  that  river  a  highway  for  the  people  of  the 
upper  country  to  go  to  the  sea  by  ;  that  this  country  was  ex- 
tensive and  fertile  ;  that  the  General,  many  officers,  and 
others  of  distinction  and  influence  in  America  were  deeply 
interested  in  it ;  that  it  would  rapidly  settle,"  etc.* 

It  seems  strange  that,  in  a  negotiation  of  this  kind, 
Mr.  Jay  should  have  allowed  himself  to  refer  to  the 
private  speculations  of  General  Washington  in  west- 
ern lands.t 

After  Jay's  departure  his  secretary,  Mr.  Carmichael, 
was  left  as  charge  d'affaires,  and;  in  1785  the  Spanish 

*  Mr.  Jay  to  the  President  of  Congress,  November  6,  1780. 

f  For  full  information  on  this  subject,  see  a  monograph  by 
Prof.  Herbert  B.  Adams,  on  Maryland's  Influence  upon  Land 
Cessions  to  the  United  States,  published  in  the  Johns  Hop- 
kins University  Studies  in  History  and  Political  Science. 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  269 

government  for  the  first  time  sent  to  this  country,  as 
charge  d'affaires,  the  same  Don  Diego  Gardoqui.  Mr. 
Jay,  who  was  then  Secretary  of  State,  was  authorized 
by  Congress  to  treat  with  the  Spanish  representative, 
not  only  on  the  question  of  boundaries,  but  on  that 
of  the  Mississippi.  Our  claim  had,  we  thought, 
been  made  perfect  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  by  which 
Great  Britain  recognized  our  independence ;  for  by 
that  treaty  Great  Britain  had  fixed,  as  our  western 
boundary,  the  Mississippi,  from  its  source  down  to 
the  thirty-first  degree  of  north  latitude,  and  the 
eighth  article  read, 

"  The  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi,  from  its  source  to  the 
ocean,  shall  forever  remain  free  and  open  to  the  subjects  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States." 

Our  claims,  therefore,  rested,  first,  on  the  law  of 
nature  and  of  nations ;  second,  on  the  treaty  of  Paris 
of  1763,  by  which  a  right  was  secured  to  the  subjects 
of  Great  Britain 

**  To  navigate  the  Mississippi,  in  its  whole  breadth  and  length, 
from  its  source  to  the  sea,  and  expressly  that  part  which  is  be- 
tween the  island  of  New  Orleans  and  the  right  bank  of  the 
river,  as  well  as  the  passage  both  in  and  out  of  its  mouth  ; 
and  that  the  vessel  should  not  be  stopped,  visited,  or  sub- 
jected to  the  payment  of  any  duty  whatsoever." 

The  cession  by  France  to  Spain  of  the  island  of 
New  Orleans,  and  of  the  country  west  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, was,  of  course,  subject  to  our  right  of  navigation 


270  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

previously  granted  to  us  by  France.  Third,  by  the 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  1782-83,  by  which,  as 
the  owners  of  all  the  country  east  of  the  Mississippi 
and  north  of  the  thirty-first  degree  of  latitude,  we 
had  come  into  all  the  rights  formerly  possessed  by 
Great  Britain  with  regard  to  that  part  of  the  river, 
including  the  right  of  free  navigation  to  the  mouth. 

Spain  objected  to  this  transfer  of  rights  on  the  part 
of  England,  pleading  that  the  English  had  ceded 
what  they  did  not  own.  Our  negotiations  were  at- 
tended with  very  great  difficulties  owing  to  the  divis- 
ion of  opinion  between  the  States,  a  fact  of  which 
Gardoqui  became  very  easily  informed.  We  were 
negotiating  not  only  for  the  freedom  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, but  also  for  a  commercial  treaty.  The  Northern 
States,  on  account  of  their  commerce,  cared  most  for 
the  commercial  treaty,  and  were  willing,  in  case  we 
could  conclude  one  with  Spain  on  reciprocal  terms,  to 
forbear  the  use  of  the  Mississippi  from  the  southern 
boundary  of  the  United  States  to  the  ocean  for 
twenty-five  or  thirty  years,  thinking  that  the  naviga- 
tion of  that  river  was  of  so  little  importance  at  that 
time  that  it  would  not  become  valuable  for  many 
years,  and  that  it  was  no  sacrifice  to  forbear  the  use 
of  a  thing  which  we  really  did  not  want.  To  this  the 
five  Southern  States — Maryland,  Virginia,  the  Caro- 
linas,  and  Georgia  were  opposed.  Many  of  their 
citizens  had  gone  into  the  western  country,  and  the 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS,  2/1 

river  system  was  such  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi appeared  to  them  of  prime  importance.  But 
at  first  the  Southern  States  were  in  a  minority,  and 
in  1 78 1,  when  Mr.  Jay  was  still  in  Spain,  he  was  em- 
powered to  propose,  as  the  condition  of  a  commercial 
treaty,  that  we  would  forbear  the  use  of  the  Missis- 
sippi for  thirty  years.*  The  feeling  of  the  country, 
however,  soon  changed.  Immediately  after  the  war 
there  was  a  large  emigration  from  the  Atlantic  States, 
which  were  oppressed  with  taxes  and  debts,  and,  as 
Mr.  Lyman  well  says, 

*'  While  Congress  was  discussing  the  points  of  a  treaty  a  nation 
was  created  there."  f 

The  time  was  now  approaching  when  the  Federal 
Government  was  about  to  go  into  operation,  and  the 
Congress  of  the  confederation,  therefore,  in  Sep- 
tember, 1788,  passed  a  resolution  declaring  that 

"  The  free  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi  is  a  clear  and 
essential  right  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  same  ought 
to  be  considered  and  supported  as  such  ;  " 

but  passed  over  the  further  negotiations  to  the  new 
Federal  Government.  Nothing,  however,  was  done 
until   the   latter  part  of   the  year   1791,  when  there 

*  Mr.  Jay  had  already  written  to  Carmichael  from  Cadiz  on 
January  27,  1780  :  '^  Let  it  appear  also  from  your  representa- 
tion that  ages  will  be  necessary  to  settle  those  extensive  re- 
gions." 

f  Lyman's  Diplomacy  of  the  United  States,  i.,  p.  235. 


272  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

came  an  intimation  from  Spain  that  she  would  be 
willing  to  treat  at  Madrid,  on  one  of  the  subjects 
then  unsettled,  viz.,  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi. 
This  hint  was  of  such  importance  that  Mr.  Car- 
michael,  who  had  left  Madrid  shortly  before,  and  Mr. 
Short,  at  that  time  charge  d'affaires  at  Paris,  were 
appointed  commissioners  to  treat  with  the  Spanish 
government  on  this  subject,  as  well  as  on  the  question 
of  boundaries  and  for  a  commercial  treaty.  The  in- 
structions with  regard  to  navigation  were  sufficiently 
explicit.  It  was  made  a  sine  qua  non  that  our  right 
be  acknowledged  of  navigating  the  Mississippi,  in  its 
whole  breadth  and  length,  from  the  source  to  the  sea, 
as  established  by  the  treaty  of  1763  ;  that  neither  the 
vessels,  cargoes,  nor  persons  on  board  be  stopped, 
visited,  or  subjected  to  the  payment  of  any  duty 
whatsoever ;  or  if  a  visit  must  be  permitted,  that  it 
be  under  such  restrictions  as  to  produce  the  least 
possible  inconvenience;  but  it  should  be  altogether 
avoided  as  the  parent  of  perpetual  broils ;  that  such 
conveniences  be  allowed  us  ashore  as  might  render  our 
right  of  navigation  practicable,  and  under  such  regu- 
lations as  might,  bona  fide,  respect  the  preservation  of 
peace  and  order  alone,  and  might  not  have  an  object 
to  embarrass  our  navigation,  or  raise  a  revenue  on  it. 
The  commissioners  were  also  instructed  that  no 
phrase  should  be  admitted  into  the  treaty  which 
could  express  or  imply  that  we  took  the  navigation  of 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  2/3 

the  Mississippi  as  a  grant  from  Spain,  although  this 
might  be  waived  rather  than  fail  in  concluding  a 
treaty.  They  were  told,  also,  that  no  proposition 
could  be  entertained  for  compensation  in  exchange 
for  the  navigation  ;  and  in  case  of  any  such  proposi- 
tion it  was  to  be  offset  by  a  claim  for  damages  to  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States  by  duties  and  deten- 
tions at  New  Orleans  during  nine  years. 
\^ne  adverse  circumstance  in  the  negotiations  was 
that  Gardoqui  was  appointed  as  Spanish  commis- 
sioner. He  had  been  in  the  United  States,  engaged 
in  previous  negotiations,  and  had  so  much  experience 
of  the  indecision  and  weakness  of  the  confederation 
that  he  was  unwilling  to  make  any  concessions,  and 
was  extremely  dilatory  in  his  management. 

Another  adverse  circumstance  was  in  the  foreign 
relations  of  Spain.  The  power  in  that  country  had 
come  into  the  hands  of  a  young  man,  Godoy,  who, 
hoping  to  save  the  life  of  Louis  XVI.,  had  interfered 
diplomatically  in  such  a  way  that  war  was  soon  after- 
ward declared  against  Spain  by  France.  There  was 
an  inclination  on  the  part  of  Spain  to  an  English  alli- 
ance, and  our  commissioners  feared  lest,  by  pressing 
too  greatly  our  claims,  England,  with  whom  our  re- 
lations were  at  that  time  very  unfriendly,  might  unite 
with  Spain  in  opposing  us.  They  therefore  recom- 
mended to  our  Government  to  postpone  negotiations 

for  a   while.     Their   instructions,  however,,  were   so 
i8 


274  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

precise  that  they  felt  it  necessary  to  act  upon  them  ; 
and,  although  they  were  successful  in  settling  certain 
questions  in  regard  to  the  Indians,  they  made  no 
progress  in  the  main  objects  of  their  mission.  The 
commission  was  soon  afterward  dissolved  by  the  de- 
parture of  Mr.  Carmichael;  and  Mr.  Short,  who  was 
left  charg^  d'affaires,  seems  to  have  become  person- 
ally disagreeable  to  the  Spanish  government. 

Spain  was  unsuccessful  in  its  war  with  France,  and 
in  July,  1795,  Godoy  succeeded  in  making  a  peace 
with  the  Republic,  at  Bale,  for  which  he  was  given 
the  title  of  "  Prince  of  the  Peace."  Indeed,  it  was 
through  Mr.  Monroe,  our  minister  at  Paris,  that  the 
first  advances  from  Spain  to  France  were  made ;  and 
in  order  to  secure  Mr.  Monroe's  good  offices  in  the 
matter,  Godoy  assured  him  that  the  settlement  of  the 
difficulties  with  the  United  States  would  be  made  at 
the  same  time  and  on  the  most  favorable  terms. 
When  the  first  advances  of  Spain  were  made  through 
Mr.  Monroe,  she  also  applied  directly  to  the  United 
States,  and  in  August,  1794,  Mr.  Jaudenes,  the  Span- 
ish commissioner,  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
expressing 

"  His  great  regret  at  the  little  progress  made  in  the  negotia- 
tions between  the  two  countries,  owing  to  the  fact  that  his 
Majesty  would  not  treat  so  long  as  the  plenipotentiaries  were 
not  furnished  with  the  amplest  powers,  or  were  directed  by 
their  secret  instructions  to  conclude  a  partial  and  not  a  general 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  2/5 

treaty  ;  at  least  his  Majesty  expected  that  the  ministers  ap- 
pointed by  the  United  States  should  be  persons  of  such  char- 
acter, distinction,  and  temper  as  would  become  a  residence 
near  his  royal  person,  and  were  required  by  the  gravity  of  the 
questions  under  negotiation ;  .  .  .  that  the  well-known 
misconceptions  of  Mr.  Carmichael,  and  the  want  of  circum- 
spection in  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Short,  rendered  it  impossi- 
ble to  conclude  this  negotiation  with  them." 

There  ensued  a  long  conversation  between  Mr. 
Randolph  and  Mr.  Jaudenes  as  to  what  the  objections 
and  difficulties  really  had  been,  and  especially  as  to 
what  Messrs.  Carmichael  and  Short  had  done  which 
rendered  them  obnoxious  to  the  Spanish  govern- 
ment.* 

After  receiving  the  explanation  from  the  Spanish 
representative,  and  ascertaining  that,  if  a  proper  per- 
son were  sent  to  Spain,  the  business  stood  a  fair  chance 
of  being  settled  quickly,  the  President,  in  November, 
1794,  appointed  Thomas  Pinckney,  then  minister  at 
London,  as  minister  plenipotentiary  at  Madrid,  with 
full  powers  to  conclude  a  treaty.  •  Before  Mr.  Pinck- 

*  Mr.  John  Adams  writes  in  his  diary,  under  the  date-  of 
April  21,  1778,  that  Carmichael  was  a  native  of  Maryland,  of 
Scotch  extraction,  and  that  he  was  in  England  or  Scotland 
when  the  Revolution  began.  "He  had  talents  and  education, 
but  was  considered  by  the  soundest  men  who  knew  him  as  too 
much  of  an  adventurer.  What  was  his  moral  character,  and 
what  his  conduct  in  Spain  I  shall  leave  to  Mr.  Jay ;  but  he 
was  represented  to  me  as  having  contributed  much  to  the  ani- 
mosities and  exasperation  among  the  Americans  at  Paris  and 
Passy." 


2/6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ney  reached  Madrid  the  Spanish  commissioner  sent 
to  Mr.  Randolph  the  points  which  would  probably 
form  the  basis  of  negotiations.  One  of  these  was 
the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi.  On  Mr.  Pinckney's 
arrival  in  Madrid,  about  the  middle  of  June,  1795,  he 
found  a  great  inclination  to  delay ;  and  finally,  after 
negotiations  had  begun,  there  were  differences  on 
three  points:  i,  The  Spanish  government  refused 
entirely  to  treat  on  the  subject  of  commerce ;  2,  they 
demanded  a  division  of  the  claims  against  Spain ; 
and  3,  while  they  admitted  that  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  should  be  free  to  both  nations,  they 
objected  to  a  depot  for  the  commerce  of  the  United 
States  being  established  at  New  Orleans,  and  insisted 
that  the  right  of  navigation  should  be  restricted 
solely  to  the  subjects  of  Spain  and  to  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States. 

When  he  found  that  these  differences  were  insuper- 
able, Mr.  Pinckney  demanded  his  passports  on  Octo- 
ber 24th.  This  brought  Godoy  to  terms,  and  so  fast 
did  negotiations  proceed  that  on  October  17,  1795, 
the  treaty  was  signed.  By  its  fourth  article  his 
Catholic  Majesty 

*'  Agreed  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  in  its  whole 
breadth  from  its  source  to  the  ocean,  should  be  free  only  to  his 
subjects  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  unless  he  should 
extend  this  privilege  to  the  subjects  of  other  powers  by  special 
convention." 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  2// 

And  by  Article  22  citizens  of  the  United  States 
were  allowed 

"  For  the  space  of  three  years  to  deposit  their  merchandise 
and  effects  in  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  and  to  export  them 
from  thence  without  paying  any  other  price  than  for  the  hire 
of  the  stores  ;  and  his  Majesty  promises  either  to  continue 
this  permission,  if  he  finds  during  that  time  that  it  is  not  pre- 
judicial lo  the  interests  of  Spain,  or  if  he  should  not  agree  to 
continue  it  there,  he  will  assign  to  them  on  another  part  of 
the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  an  equivalent  establishment." 

So  far  as  the  Mississippi  was  concerned  this  treaty 
was  all  that  the  United  States  could  desire.  Godoy 
himself  says  of  it  afterward  in  his  "  Memoirs : " 

"  This  was,  moreover,  a  formal  act  of  navigation,  indepen- 
dently of  carefully  providing  for  the  common  interests  of  both 
nations,  that  realized  the  first  application  of  modern  ideas  re- 
specting the  equality  of  maritime  rights  and  the  measures 
which  humanity  enjoins  in  order  to  lessen  the  evils  of  war — 
ideas  hitherto  recorded  in  books  and  proclaimed  by  the  civili- 
zation of  the  age,  but  the  practical  application  of  which  has  at 
all  times  been  opposed  by  England." 

Nevertheless  the  execution  of  this  treaty  was  at- 
tended by  numerous  obstacles.  It  was  a  long  time 
before  the  boundary  lines  were  finally  arranged,  and  it 
was  fully  three  years  before  the  Spanish  troops  were 
withdrawn  from  the  territory  of  the  United  States. 
Delays  were  demanded  both  for  Natchez  and  the 
Walnut  Hills.  In  May,  1797,  the  Spanish  govern- 
ment, through  their  minister  at  Washington,  addressed 


2/8  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

a  formal  protest  and  remonstrance  against  the  various 
provisions  in  our  own  treaty  with  Great  Britain 
signed  in  1794.  Some  of  the  Spanish  objections 
were  to  the  principle  of  free  ships,  free  goods,  and  to 
the  designation  of  contraband  articles ;  but  there  was 
especial  protest  against  the  rights  given  to  Great 
Britain  on  the  Mississippi.  It  had  been  stipulated  in 
an  explanatory  article  of  the  treaty  of  1 794,  signed  at 
Philadelphia  on  May  4,  1 796,  that  no  stipulations  in 
any  treaty  subsequently  concluded  "  can  be  under- 
stood to  derogate  in  any  manner  from  the  rights  of 
free  intercourse  and  commerce  secured  by  the  third 
article  of  the  treaty"  of  1794.  In  this  third  article  it 
had  been  stated  that  "  the  river  Mississippi  shall,  ac- 
cording to  the  treaty  of  peace,  be  entirely  open  to 
both  parties."  Spain  referred  to  the  fourth  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1795,  by  which  the  right  of  free  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi  belonged  solely  to  Spanish  subjects 
and  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  argued  that 
by  the  treaty  of  1763  Spain  had  ceded  to  England  both 
banks  of  the  Mississippi,  which  carried  with  it  the 
free  navigation  of  the  river ;  that  by  the  treaty  of 
1783  England  had  granted  that  right  to  the  United 
States ;  but  that,  by  a  treaty  of  the  same  date  made 
with  Spain,  England  had  restored  to  Spain  both  banks 
of  the  Mississippi  without  reserving  the  right  of  naviga- 
tion. But,  as  this  right  had  therefore  passed  away  from 
England,  she  could  not  cede  it  to  the  United  States. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  2^^ 

Besides,  even  if  by  that  treaty  England  had  not  been 
deprived  of  the  right  to  use  the  navigation,  the  separa- 
tion of  the  colonies  had  destroyed  any  right  which  the 
Americans  might  have  formerly  pleaded  as  English 
subjects.  There  was,  therefore,  but  one  source  of  de- 
rivation for  the  right  of  the  United  States — the  special 
treaty  with  Spain — but  that  treaty  had  conferred  the 
navigation  exclusively  upon  the  subjects  of  Spain 
and  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  therefore  the 
United  States  had  no  power  to  grant  this  privilege 
to  any  one  else.  The  answer  of  Mr.  Pickering,  the 
Secretary  of  State,  was  weak.  He  had  to  admit  that 
if  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi  originated  in  their  treaty  with  Spain 
of  1795,  they  certainly  had  no  right  to  grant  it  to 
Great  Britain  in  1794.  He  therefore  brought  up  ex- 
tracts from  Mr.  Pinckney's  notes  in  which  reference 
to  the  rights  of  Great  Britain  had  been  made,  and 
where  Mr.  Pinckney  had  contended  that  the  words 
"  alone  and  exclusively  "  submitted  in  the  projects  of 
Godoy  should  be  omitted.  But,  unfortunately,  the 
notes  of  the  negotiation  could  not  bear  against  the 
express  stipulation.  Another  ground  taken  by  Mr. 
Pickering  was  still  weaker,  that  the  stipulation  as  to 
navigation  was  not  a  joint  stipulation,  but  sole  on  the 
part  of  the  Spanish  King,  and  that  it  concerned  the 
United  States  no  further  than  that  it  gave  them  the 
freedom   of    navigation.      There   was,   however,   not 


280  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

much  use  in  arguing  the  question,  for  it  must  have 
been  understood  that  the  United  States  would  have 
been  perfectly  willing  to  accept  any  arrangement  from 
Spain  that  practically  opened  the  river,  without  too 
strictly  scrutinizing  its  language,  provided  that  the 
concession  did  not  rest  expressly  on  the  grant  from 
Spain. 

"  The  objection  to  the  supplementary  article  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States,"  as  Mr.  Trescot  says,  was  ''  sim- 
ply captious,  for  it  could  confer  no  possible  right  and  in  no 
way  go  a  step  beyond  the  original  article  in  the  treaty  of  1783, 
by  which  the  United  States  did  nothing  more  than  grant  to 
Great  Britain  whatever  right  to  navigation  she  might  possess, 
neither  the  original  nor  the  supplementary  articles  undertaking 
to  express  what  those  rights  were."* 

After  all  objections  and  difficulties  seemed  to 
be  overcome,  an  event  occurred  which  might  have 
given  rise  to  serious  conflict.  Morales,  the  Spanish 
intendant,  on  October  2,  1802,  suspended  the  right  of 
deposit  at  New  Orleans,  which  had  been  enjoyed  since 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  and  had  been  found  by 

*  The  commissioners  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  peace 
wrote  to  Secretary  Livingston,  from  Paris,  on  December  14, 
1782  :  "As  to  the  separate  article,  we  beg  to  observe  that  it 
was  our  policy  to  render  the  navigation  of  the  river  Mississippi 
so  important  to  Britain  as  that  their  views  might  correspond 
with  ours  on  that  subject.  Their  possessing  the  country  on 
the  river  north  of  the  line  from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  affords  a 
foundation  for  their  claiming  such  navigation."— John  Adams  : 
Life  and  Works,  viii.,  p.  19. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.     •  28 1 

the  Americans  of  great  use.  The  object  of  this  decree 
was  in  order  that  the  trade  might  fall  into  the  hands 
of  the  Spaniards,  now  that  a  general  pacification  had 
been  made  in  Europe ;  for  while  the  war  continued 
the  Spaniards  had  not  been  able  to  carry  on  their 
trade.  The  action  of  Morales  was  disavowed  by  the 
Spanish  government,  but  the  difficulties  were  not 
entirely  removed  until  the  cession  of  Louisiana  by 
France  in  1803,  when  our  rights  were  of  course  ex- 
tended to  the  mouth  of  the  river.  By  the  subsequent 
cession  of  East  and  West  Florida  in  18 19  the  whole 
of  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  from  the  source  to  the 
mouth,  became  American  ;  and  as  the  stipulations  for 
the  rights  of  British  subjects  to  the  navigation  of  the 
river  had  not  been  mentioned  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent 
of  1 8 14,  they  lapsed;  so  that  during  the  negotiations 
on  the  question  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  ten  or  twelve 
years  later,  we  refused  to  acknowledge  any  rights  of 
England  to  the  use  of  the  Mississippi,  it  being  all  in- 
cluded within  the  United  States,  unless  some  branch 
should  be  discovered  rising  within  the  British  do- 
minions. 


282  •  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 


^.— THE    ST.    LAWRENCE. 

Petition  from  New  York. — Instructions  to  Mr.  Rush. — Reply 
of  Great  Britain  to  our  Claim  of  Free  Navigation. — Mr. 
Clay's  Arguments. — Mr.  Gallatin's  Opinions. — Suspension 
of  Negotiations. — Treaty  of  1854. — Treaty  of  1871,  Grant- 
ing the  Right  Forever. 

The  American  claim  to  the  free  navigation  of  the 
St.  Lawrence  rested  on  the  same  basis  of  natural  right 
as  that  to  the  use  of  the  Mississippi,  Great  Britain 
being  here  substituted  for  Spain.  The  action  of  the 
congresses  at  Paris  in  18 14  and  at  Vienna  in  181 5,  by 
which  the  navigation  of  the  Rhine  and  its  afBuents, 
as  well  as  of  the  Scheldt,  had  been  thrown  open  to 
the  whole  world,  were  additional  arguments  for  the 
United  States,  and  showed  how  much  the  general 
feeling  of  the  world,  as  to  the  use  of  navigable  rivers, 
had  advanced. 

There  had  been  no  mention  of  the  St.  Lawrence  in 
any  of  our  treaties  with  Great  Britain;  but  in  1823 
the  inhabitants  of  Franklin  County,  N.  Y.,  presented 
a  petition  to  Congress,  asking  for  the  right  to  be 
secured  to  them  of  sending  their  exports,  chiefly 
lumber,  through  the  St.  Lawrence  to  the  Atlantic. 
They  had  no  difficulty  in  disposing  of  their  products, 
whether  lumber,  pot  and  pearl  ashes,  salted  provisions, 
or  flour,  in  the  markets  of  Montreal  or  Quebec,  but 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS,  283 

they  could  be  sent  no  further.  They  were  sold  to 
English  subjects  who  received  the  middleman's  profits. 
This  trade  had  gradually  increased,  and  in  1821  the 
amount  of  a  single  article — lumber — transported  down 
the  St.  Lawrence,  amounted  in  value  to  $650,000, 
without  bringing  into  the  estimate  the  portion  which 
found  its  way  through  Lake  Champlain  and  the  Sorel 
to  Montreal  and  Quebec.  This  trade,  so  far  as  it 
dealt  in  the  principal  articles  of  flour  and  lumber,  was 
almost  entirely  destroyed  by  an  act  of  Parliament  in 
August,  1822,  which  was  in  effect,  though  not  in  form, 
prohibitory. 

Congress  reported  favorably  on  this  petition,  and 
in  June,  1823,  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  instructed 
Mr.  Rush,  our  minister  at  London,  to  present  our 
claim  to  the  British  government.  Mr.  Rush  was 
then  engaged  in  negotiations  for  obtaining  various 
commercial  rights,  as  well  as  for  other  subjects,  and 
found  occasion  to  present  the  matter  to  Great  Britain, 
much  apparently  to  the  surprise  of  the  British  nego- 
tiators, who  said  that,  on  the  principle  of  accommo- 
dation they  were  willing  to  treat  with  this  claim  of 
the  United  States  in  a  spirit  of  entire  amity ;  that  is, 
as  they  explained,  to  treat  it  as  a  concession  on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain,  for  which  the  United  States 
must  be  prepared  to  offer  a  full  equivalent.  This 
was  the  only  light  in  which  they  could  entertain  the 
question.     As  to  the  claim  of  right,  they  hoped  that 


284  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

it  would  not  even  be  advanced.  Persisted  in,  they 
were  willing  to  persuade  themselves  it  would  never 
be.  It  was  equally  novel  and  extraordinary.  They 
could  not  repress  their  strong  feelings  and  surprise  at 
its  bare  intimation.  Great  Britain  possessed  the  ab- 
solute sovereignty  over  this  river  in  all  parts  where 
both  banks  were  of  her  territorial  dominion.  Her 
right,  hence,  to  exclude  a  foreign  nation  from  navigat- 
ing it  was  not  to  be  doubted,  scarcely  to  be  discussed. 
This  was  the  manner  in  which  it  was  first  received. 
They  opposed  to  the  claim  an  immediate,  positive, 
unqualified  resistance. 

"I  said,"  said  Mr.  Rush,  "  that  our  claim  was  neither  novel 
nor  extraordinary.  It  was  one  that  had  been  well  considered 
by  my  Government,  and  was  believed  to  be  maintainable  on 
the  soundest  principles  of  public  law.  The  question  had 
been  familiar  to  the  past  discussions  of  the  United  States,  as 
their  state  papers  which  were  before  the  world  would  show.  It 
had  been  asserted,  and  successfully  asserted,  in  relation  to  an- 
other great  river  of  the  American  continent  flowing  to  the 
south — the  Mississippi — at  a  time  when  both  its  lower  banks 
were  under  the  dominion  of  a  foreign  power.  The  essential 
principles  that  had  governed  in  the  one  case  were  now  appli- 
cable to  the  other."  * 

Mr.  Rush  thought  It  best  to  consign  his  arguments 
to  a  written  paper,  which  was  duly  presented  and  en- 

*  The  official  correspondence  is  published  in  Congressional 
Documents,  Session  1827-28,  No.  43  ;  see,  also.  Foreign  Re- 
lations, folio,  vi.,  7S7-777' 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  285 

tered  upon  the  protocol  of  the  eighteenth  conference. 
At  the  twenty-fourth  conference  the  British  negotia- 
tors presented  their  reply,  which  had  been  drawn  up 
by  five  of  the  most  eminent  publicists  of  the  kingdom. 
It  is  not  worth  while  here  to  recapitulate  the  ar- 
guments employed  by  both  governments,  except  to 
say  that  the  United  States  rested  their  claim  entirely 
upon  natural  rights,  and  the  English  their  opposition 
thereto  on  the  previous  custom  of  nations.  "  The 
American  Government,"  as  Mr.  Clay  subsequently 
wrote  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  "  has  not  contended,  and  does 
not  mean  to  contend,  for  any  principle,  the  benefit  of 
which  in  analogous  circumstances  it  would  deny  to 
Great  Britain."  Mr.  Clay  admitted  that  if  it  were 
found  that  a  branch  of  the  Columbia  River  rose  in 
British  territory,  the  British  would  have  a  right  to 
navigate  the  Columbia  to  the  sea ;  and  so,  if  further 
exploration  of  the  country  should  develop  a  connec- 
tion between  the  Mississippi  and  Upper  Canada.  He 
said  : 

*'  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  all  the  extreme  cases  which 
may  be  fancifully  presented,  such  as  the  foreign  claim  to  pass- 
ing the  Isthmus  of  Darien,  to  drive  a  trade  between  Europe 
and  distant  India  through  two  oceans,  or  that  of  passing 
through  England  to  trade  with  France  or  other  portions  of  the 
European  continent.  Examples  of  that  kind  belong  to  the 
species  of  sophistry  which  would  subvert  all  principles  by 
pushing  their  assumed  consequences  into  the  regions  of  ex- 
travagant supposition." 


286  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

No  answer  was  made  at  the  time  to  the  British 
paper  consigned  to  the  protocols  of  the  conferences 
between  Mr.  Rush  and  the  British  negotiators,  until 
Mr.  Clay  had  become  Secretary  of  State.  Mr.  Gal- 
latin was  sent  as  minister  to  England,  and  among  the 
subjects  to  which  his  attention  was  especially  directed 
was  that  of  the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence.  Mr. 
Clay,  in  a  very  interesting  and  able  paper,  resumed 
the  whole  case  of  the  United  States.  He  desired  not 
only  that  the  right  to  the  free  navigation  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  should  be  acknowledged  as  a  right,  but  that 
the  concession  should  be  given  of  depots  for  Amer- 
ican produce  at  Quebec,  and  possibly  also  at  Mon- 
treal. In  his  instructions  Mr.  Clay  made  one  very 
good  point,  saying: 

"  If  the  United  States  were  disposed  to  exert  within  their 
jurisdiction  a  power  over  the  St.  Lawrence  similar  to  that 
which  is  exercised  by  Great  Britain,  British  subjects  could  be 
made  to  experience  the  same  kind  of  inconvenience  as  that 
to  which  American  citizens  are  now  exposed.  The  best,  and 
for  descending  navigation  the  only  channel  of  the  St.  Lawrence, 
between  Bernhard's  Island  and  the  American  shore,  is  within 
our  limits  ;  and  every  British  boat  and  raft,  therefore,  that  de- 
scends the  St.  Lawrence  comes  within  the  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  United  States.  The  trade  of  the  upper  province  is 
consequently  in  our  power." 

Indeed,  a  report  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  in  March,  1825,  recommended  an  applica- 
tion to  Congress  to  exercise  this  power  in  retaliation 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  28/ 

for  the  British  act  of   1822   regulating  the  Canadian 
trade.     This  report  said  : 

'*The  right  to  navigate  the  St.  Lawrence  can  be  of  very 
little  use  to  us  unless  we  are  allowed  to  trade  at  Montreal  and 
our  trade  there  is  placed  on  a  liberal  footing." 

Mr.  Gallatin,  in  giving  his  opinion  on  his  instruc- 
tions, wrote  to  Mr.  Clay  from  New  York  June  29, 
1826: 

"  Generally  speaking,  two  courses  present  themselves  :  i,  To 
insist  on  the  right,  and  wait  for  a  favorable  opportunity  to  as- 
sert it,  even  at  the  risk  of  losing  for  the  present  the  advantages 
which  might  be  derived  from  a  practical  arrangement ;  2,  to 
waive  for  the  present,  without  renouncing,  the  right,  and  to 
make  a  commercial  arrangement  which  may  remove  or  lessen 
the  evils  now  complained  of."  * 

Subsequently,  in  giving  to  President  Adams  an 
account  of  the  state  of  negotiations,  Mr.  Gallatin 
wrote : 

"  St.  Lawrence  wholly  impracticable  to  obtain,  and  inexpe- 
dient to  offer  any  article  founded  avowedly  or  by  implication 
on  our  right  to  navigate  that  river  ;  none  suggested  for  a  tem- 
porary arrangement  of  the  inland  intercourse  with  Canada, 
implying  only,  but  without  doubt,  reservation  of  the  right."  f 

President  Adams  in  reply  wrote  : 

"  One  inch  of  ground  yielded  on  the  northwest  coast,  one 
step  backward  from  the  claim  to  the  navigation  of  the  St. 
Lawrence,  one  hair's-breadth  of  compromise  upon  the  article 

*  Gallatin's  Writings,  ii.,  p.  313.  t  Ibid.,  p.  348. 


288  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

of  impressments,  would  be  certain  to  meet  the  reprobation  of 
the  Senate.  In  this  temper  of  the  parties  all  we  can  hope  to 
accomplish  will  be  to  adjourn  controversies  which  we  cannot 
adjust,  and  say  to  Britain,  as  the  Abbe  Bernis  said  to  Cardinal 
Fleury,  '  Monseigneur,  j'attendrai.'"  * 

Gallatin  was  cautious  in  his  negotiations,  and  wrote 
to  Mr.  Clay  at  the  end  of  September,  1827  : 

*'The  determination  not  to  open  the  colonial  intercourse, 
and  that  not  to  negotiate  on  the  river  St.  Lawrence  without 
something  like  a  disclaimer  of  the  right,  had  been  taken  be- 
fore my  arrival,  and  on  both  points  this  government  was  im- 
movable."! 

Again,  six  weeks  later,  he  wrote  to  the  President : 

*  *  This  might,  in  my  opinion,  be  obtained  at  any  time  by  re- 
nouncing the  right.  It  is  certain  that  it  could  not  be  secured 
at  this  time  by  any  agreement  which  would  not  be  tantamount 
to  a  renunciation."  t 

When  Mr.  Everett  went  to  London  as  minister, 
Gallatin,  who  had  already  returned,  wrote  to  him  on 
this  subject : 

"  The  argument  derived  from  natural  law  is  strong.  The 
precedents,  that  of  the  Scheldt  excepted,  are,  I  fear,  against 
us.  The  most  formidable  objection  is  to  be  found  in  forty 
years'  acquiescence,  and  in  having  accepted  by  the  treaty  of 
1794  a  part  only,  and  very  limited,  of  the  navigation,  unac- 
companied by  any  assertion  or  reservation  of  the  right.  I  have 
no  doubt  of  the  free  use  being  ultimately  allowed  by  Great 
Britain,  not  as  a  matter  of  right,  but  because  it  is  clearly  their 

*  Gelatin's  Writings,  ii.  p.  368.        t  Ibid. ,  p.  372.         %  Ibid. ,  p.  395. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  289 

interest   to    afford    every    facility   to    draw    our   produce   to 
Qiiebec."* 

Here  negotiations  rested  for  many  years.  The 
trade  between  the  United  States  and  Canada  had 
taken  a  very  different  turn.  Lumber,  instead  of  being 
sent  abroad  from  Northern  New  York,  was  imported 
into  the  United  States  from  Canada.  The  canal 
system  of  the  State  of  New  York  seemed  to  answer 
all  the  needs  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  part  of  the 
country.  But  in  1854  the  disputes  about  the  rights 
of  fishery  led  to  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty,  which, 
while  regulating  this  subject,  agreed  for  a  commercial 
reciprocity  between  Canada  and  the  United  States. 
By  the  fourth  article  it  was  agreed  that  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States  should  have  the  right  to  navigate 
the  river  St.  Lawrence  and  the  canals  of  Canada, 
which  had  been  constructed  since  the  previous  nego- 
tiations, as  a  means  of  communicating  between  the 
great  lakes  and  the  Atlantic  Ocean  ;  but  the  British 
government  retained  the  right  of  suspending  this 
privilege  on  giving  due  notice.  As  an  equivalent  to 
the  privilege  of  navigating  the  St.  Lawrence,  British 
subjects  were  given  the  right  to  navigate  Lake  Michi- 
gan. Evidently  by  this  treaty  we  obtained  the  navi- 
gation of  the  St.  Lawrence  as  a  concession  and  not  as 
a  right.     The  treaty  was  made  terminable  after  ten 

*  Gallatin's  Writings,  ii. ,  p.  403. 
19 


290  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

years  on  a  twelvemonth's  notice  by  either  party. 
During  the  war  of  the  Rebellion,  owing  partly  to  the 
predominance  of  protectionists  in  Congress,  who  ob- 
jected to  the  comparative  free  trade  with  Canada, 
and  partly  to  the  feeling  against  the  Canadians  aris- 
ing out  of  various  incidents  connected  with  the  war, 
the  United  States  gave  notice  for  the  termination  of 
this  treaty,  and  the  treaty  accordingly  came  to  an  end 
on  March  17,  1866. 

The  question  remained  in  this  state  until  the  nego- 
tiations at  Washington,  which  resulted  in  the  treaty  of 
May  8,  1871.  Among  the  various  subjects  treated  by 
the  high  commissioners  was  the  navigation  of  the  St. 
Lawrence  River.  We  still  claimed  that  navigation  as 
a  right.  The  British  commissioners  were  willing  to 
yield^it  as  a  concession,  provided  that  we  should  give 
the  right  of  navigation  of  Lake  Michigan  as  an  equiv- 
alent. This  our  commissioners  absolutely  refused. 
The  subject  was  several  times  discussed,  and  finally 
they  were  asked  whether,  if  the  St.  Lawrence  were 
declared  free,  we  would  admit  the  same  rights  to  cer- 
tain rivers  rising  in  the  British  territories,  passing 
through  the  province  of  Alaska,  and  emptying  into 
the  Pacific  Ocean.  This  the  United  States  took  under 
consideration,  and  the  result  was  the  twenty-sixth  ar- 
ticle of  the  treaty,  which  stated  that 

*'  The  navigation  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  ascending  and 
descending,  from  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  where 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  29 1 

it  ceases  to  form  the  boundary  between  the  two  countries,  from, 
to,  and  into  the  sea,  s\i2Mi  forever  remain  free  and  open  for  the 
purposes  of  commerce  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
subject  to  any  laws  and  regulations  of  Great  Britain,  or  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  not  inconsistent  with  such  privilege  of 
free  navigation." 

The  rivers  of  which  we  granted  the  free  navigation 
to  British  subjects  were  the  Yukon,  the  Porcupine, 
and  the  Stikine.  The  British  government  engaged 
to  urge  upon  the  Dominion  of  Canada  to  secure  to 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  the  use  of  the  Wel- 
land,  St.  Lawrence,  and  other  canals  in  the  Dominion 
on  terms  of  equality  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  Do- 
minion. The  United  States  gave  the  use  of  the  St. 
Clair  Flats'  Canal  on  equal  terms,  and  engaged  to  urge 
upon  the  State  governments  to  secure  for  British  sub- 
jects the  use  of  the  several  State  canals  connected 
with  the  navigation  of  the  lakes  or  rivers  traversed  by 
the  boundary  line.  We  also  granted  the  use  for  ten 
years  of  the  navigation  of  Lake  Michigan,  as  an 
equivalent  for  certain  fishing  rights  on  the  coast,  and 
terminable  with  them.  Those  rights  having  now 
terminated,  the  privilege  of  navigating  Lake  Michigan 
has  also  ended. 


'^  UNIVERSITl 


292  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 


C-THE    NORTH    PACIFIC    OCEAN. 

American  Enterprise  in  the  Pacific. — The  Russian-American 
Company. — The  Russian  Ukase  of  1821. — Negotiations. — 
Treaty  of  1824. — Further  Proposals. — Public  Opinion.— 
Negotiations  of  1834. — Treaty  of  1867  ceding  Russian 
America. 

Years  before  the  United  States  possessed  a  foot  of 
land  on  the  Pacific  coast,  adventurous  American  sea- 
men had  doubled  Cape  Horn.  In  the  autumn  of 
1788  the  ship  Columbia,  of  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
tons,  and  the  sloop  Washington  of  ninety  tons,  ar- 
rived in  Nootka  Sound  from  Boston,  passed  the  win- 
ter there,  explored  Queen  Charlotte's  Sound  and  the 
Strait  of  San  Juan  de  Fuca.  The  Columbia  took  a 
cargo  of  furs  to  Canton,  and  thence  a  cargo  of  tea  to 
Boston,  being  the  first  vessel  to  carry  the  American 
flag  round  the  world.  From  that  time  on  until  18 14 
the  direct  trade  between  the  American  coasts  and 
China  was  almost  entirely  carried  on  in  American  ves- 
sels. The  opposition  of  the  East  India  Company 
prevented  British  merchants  from  engaging  in  this 
trade ;  entrance  to  the  Chinese  ports  was  forbidden  to 
Russian  ships ;  and  there  were  few  ships  of  other  na- 
tions in  that  part  of  the  Pacific.  After  the  fur-trade 
on  the  northwestern  coasts  had  been  reorganized  by 
the   foundation,    in    1798,  of   the   Russian-American 


\/ 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  293 

Company,  there  were  complaints  against  the  Ameri- 
cans of  furnishing  arms  and  ammunition  to  the  na- 
tives, and  had  it  been  possible  for  the  Russians  to 
carry  on  their  commerce  without  our  aid,  they  would 
gladly  have  excluded  our  vessels.  In  1806  the  ques 
tion  of  expelling  the  Americans  was  settled  for  the 
time  by  the  fact  that  the  Russian  garrison  and  set- 
tlers at  Sitka  would  all  have  died  of  hunger,  but  for 
the  opportune  arrival  of  the  American  ship  Juno.* 
Three  years  later  the  Russian  government  made  rep- 
resentations to  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of 
the  illicit  trade,  which,  it  was  alleged,  our  citizens 
carried  on  with  the  natives  of  the  North  Pacific 
coasts,  and  desired  that  we  should  make  a  conven- 
tion, or  at  least  pass  an  act  of  Congress  to  hinder  the 
sale  of  spirits,  arms,  and  ammunition  in  those  parts. 
Finally,  Russia  proposed  an  arrangement  by  which 
American  vessels  should  supply  the  Russian  settle- 
ments on  the  Pacific  with  provisions  and  manufact- 
ures, and  should  do  the  carrying  trade  to  Canton,  on 
condition  of  abstaining  from  intercourse  with  the  na- 
tives. There  were  several  reasons  for  not  accepting 
this  proposition,  but  especially  because  it  was  claimed 
that  the  Russian  possessions  extended  southward  to 
the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River.  We  were  then 
engaged  in  a  dispute  with  Great  Britain  about  this 

*  History  of  Oregon  and  California,  by  Robert  Greenhow. 


294  AMERICAN  DIPL OMA  C V. 

very  coast,  and  naturally  could  not  admit  the  claims 
of  Russia.* 

The  trading  post  of  Astoria,  founded  by  Mr.  John 
Jacob  Astor,  was  taken  by  the  British  during  the 
war ;  it  was  found  impossible  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent 
to  settle  the  boundary  line  westward  of  the  Lake  of 
the  Woods;  and  by  the  Convention  of  1818  the 
northwest  coast  westward  of  the  Rocky  Mountains 
was,  for  ten  years,  left  free  and  open  to  the  vessels, 
citizens,  and  subjects  of  the  two  powers,  without  prej- 
udice to  their  respective  claims.  In  December,  1820, 
immediately  after  the "  ratification  of  the  Florida 
treaty,  a  resolution  was  passed  by  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives "  that  an  inquiry  should  be  made  as  to 
the  situation  of  the  settlements  on  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
and  as  to  the  expediency  of  occupying  the  Columbia 
River."  A  favorable  report  was  made,  and  a  bill  was 
introduced  for  the  occupation  of  the  Columbia  River, 
which  was,  however,  suffered  to  lie  on  the  table  for 
the  rest  of  the  session. 

Such  was  the  state  of  affairs  when  suddenly,  at 
least  to  us,  in  September,  1821,  the  Emperor  Alex- 
ander issued  a  ukase  to  the  effect  that 

"  The  pursuits  of  commerce,  whaling,  and  fishery,  and  of  all 
other  industry  on  all  islands,  ports,  and  gulfs,  including  the 
whole  of  the  northwestern  coast  of  America,  beginning  from 

*  For  the  papers,  see  Foreign  Relations,  folio,  v. ,  pp.  432-471. 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  295 

Behring's  Straits  to  the  fifty-first  degree  of  north  latitude, 
also  from  the  Aleutian  Islands  to  the  eastern  coast  of  Siberia, 
as  well  as  along  the  Kurile  Islands  from  Behring's  Str^tslor ji /^  j 
the  South  Cape  of  the  island  of  Urup,  viz.,  to  45^  50' 'north 
latitude,  are  exclusively  granted  to  Russian  subjects.  It  is 
therefore  prohibited  to  all  foreign  vessels  not  only  to  land  on 
the  coasts  and  islands  belonging  to  Russia,  as  stated  above, 
but  also  to  approach  within  less  than  one  hundred  Italian 
miles.  The  transgressor's  vessel  is  subject  to  confiscation 
along  with  the  whole  cargo." 

The  first  information  of  this  was  received  by  our 
Government  in  a  note  from  Mr.  Poletica,  the  Russian 
minister,  dated  February  28,  1822,  which  gave  the 
whole  history,  from  Russian  sources,  of  the  Russian 
discovery  of  the  northwestern  coast  of  America  and 
the  subsequent  settlements  there.  There  was  much 
reference  to  the  accounts  of  Russian  explorers,  all  of 
which  are  now  perfectly  well  known  to  geographers, 
but  which  at  that  time,  not  having  been  published  in 
English,  were  looked  upon  with  considerable  distrust 
by  our  Government.  Mr.  Poletica  defended  the 
choice  of  the  fifty-first  parallel  upon  the  ground  that 
this  was  midway  between  Sitka  and  the  establishment 
of  the  United  States  at  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia, 
and  maintained  that  Russia-  would  be  justified  in 
exercising  the  right  of  sovereignty  over  the  whole  of 
the  Pacific  Ocean  north  of  the  fifty-first  parallel,  as 
that  section  of  the  sea  was  bounded  on  both  sides  by 
Russian  territories,  and   was  thus,  in  fact,  a  close  sea. 


296  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

With  regard  to  this  unwarrantable  extension  of  the 
doctrine  "of  the  King's  chambers,"  Mr.  Adams 
quietly  remarked  that  the  distance  between  the 
shores  of  Asia  and  America,  on  the  parallel  of  fifty- 
one  degrees  north,  is  four  thousand  miles,  and  said  : 

*'  From  the  period  of  the  existence  of  the  United  States  as 
an  independent  nation,  their  vessels  had  freely  navigated  those 
seas  ;  and  the  right  to  navigate  them  was  a  part  of  that  inde- 
pendence, as  also  the  right  of  their  citizens  to  trade,  even  in 
arms  and  munitions  of  war,  with  the  aboriginal  natives  of  the 
northwest  coast  of  America,  who  were  not  under  the  territorial 
jurisdiction  of  other  nations." 

He  at  the  same  time  denied  the  Russian  claim  to 
any  part  of  America  south  of  fifty-five  degrees. 

This  ukase  was  undoubtedly  due  to  the  great  in- 
fluence which  the  Russian-American  Company  then 
possessed  at  the  Russian  court.  Professor  F.  von 
Martens,  the  Russian  publicist,  now  brings  up  the 
one-hundred-mile  limit  contained  therein,  as  an  in- 
stance of  "  greatly  exaggerated  claims."  * 

Mr.  Middleton,  our  minister  at  St.  Petersburg, 
wrote  on  the  subject  on  August  20,  1822  : 

"  Baron  de  Tuyl  is  coming  out  as  minister  from  Russia, 
charged  with  a  proposal  for  negotiating  on  the  subject." 

Mr.  Speransky,  then  Governor-General  of  Siberia, 
had  told  him  that  the  Russians  had  at  first  thought 

*  Volkerrecht,  i.,  p.  380. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  2gj 

of  declaring  the  North  Pacific  ocean  a  mare  clausiun, 
but  afterward  took  one  hundred  Italian  miles  from 
the  thirty  leagues  in  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  which  is 
an  exclusion  only  from  "  a  fishery  and  not  from  navi- 
gation." ^ 

Baron  de  Tuyl  duly  came,  was  found  by  Mr. 
Adams  "  more  agreeable,  much  more  complaisant 
than  his  predecessor,"  and  showed  every  disposition 
to  come  to  an  arrangement.  The  controversy,  how- 
ever, was  chiefly  carried  on  at  St.  Petersburg.  When 
the  Cabinet  considered  the  instructions  for  Mr.  Mid- 
dleton,  Mr.  Adams  said  :  "  I  thought  no  territorial 
right  could  be  admitted  on  this  continent,  as  the 
Russians  appear  to  have  no  settlement  upon  it  except 
that  in  California."  He  was  thereupon  authorized 
to  draft  instructions  for  Mr.  Middleton  who  was, 

"  First,  to  propose  an  article  similar  to  that  in  our  conven- 
tion with  Great  Britain  of  October,  1818,  agreeing  that  the 
whole  coast  should  be  open  for  the  navigation  of  all  the  parties 
for  a  definite  term  of  years,  and  as  there  would  probably  be 
no  inducement  for  the  Russians  to  agree  to  this,  he  should 
then  offer  to  agree  to  the  boundary  line  for  Russia  at  the  fifty- 
fifth  degree,  on  condition  that  the  coast  might  be  frequented 
for  trade  with  the  natives,  as  it  has  been  heretofore." 

Mr.  Adams  devoted  great  attention  to  the  subject, 
reading  up  all  the  books  of  travel  and  discovery  on 
the  northwest  that  he  was  able  to  lay  his  hands  upon, 

*  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vi.,  p.  93. 


298  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  wrote  subsequently  in  his  diary,  on  July  ist :  "I 
find  proof  enough  to  put  down  the  Russian  govern- 
ment, but  how  shall  we  answer  the  Russian  can- 
non ?  "  ^  A  few  days  later  the  Russian  minister  held 
a  friendly  conversation  with  him,  and  desired  to  know 
the  purport  of  the  instructions  to  Mr.  Middleton, 
which  were  told  him.     Mr.  Adams  says  : 

"  I  told  him  specially  that  we  should  contest  the  right  of 
Russia  to  any  territorial  establishment  on  this  continent ;  and 
that  we  should  assume  distinctly  the  principle  that  the  Ameri- 
can continents  are  no  longer  subjects  for  any  new  European 
colonial  establishments."  f 

This  was  the  first  hint  of  the  policy  which  after- 
ward came  to  be  known  as  the  Monroe  doctrine. 

While  negotiations  were  going  on  at  St.  Peters- 
burg, Baron  de  Tuyl  was  from  time  to  time  anxious 
and  troubled  in  mind.  At  one  time  he  brought  Mr. 
Adams  an  account  of  the  toasts  that  had  been  drunk 
at  a  dinner  given  to  Commodore  Hull,  who  was 
going  to  take  command  of  a  Pacific  squadron.  These 
toasts  were  belligerent  in  tone,  and  the  minister  was 
fearful  lest  there  might  be  bloodshed,  although  the 
Russian  cruisers  had  received  the  most  specific  in- 
structions. At  another  time  the  Baron  brought  a 
Washington  Gazette,  with  a  paragraph  taken  from  the 
Boston  Sentinel,  purporting  to  be  a  letter  from 
Washington,  which  he  thought  would  be  annoying  to 

*  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vi.,  p.  159.  t  Ibid.,  p.  163. 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  299 

the  Emperor.  He  said  that  the  Emperor  entered 
much  into  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  was  solicitous  to 
stand  fair  in  public  opinion.  "  I  took  the  paper," 
said  Mr.  Adams,  "  and  told  him  I  would  prepare  a 
paragraph  on  the  subject."  The  paragraph,  of  a 
quieting  nature,  duly  appeared  as  an  editorial  in  the 
National  Intelligencer,  and  Baron  de  Tuyl  immedi- 
ately came  to  thank  the  secretary  for  his  courtesy  in 
publishing  it. 

The  negotiations  of  Mr.  Middleton  resulted  to  our 
satisfaction.      The   Russian   government    gave   way, 
and  by  a  convention  concluded  on  April  17,  1824,  it 
was  agreed  that  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Rus- 
sian possessions  in  America  should  be  placed  at  54° 
40'  north  latitude  ;  that  navigation  and  fishing  should 
not   be  disturbed  or  restrained  upon  points  not  al- 
ready occupied ;  but  that  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  should  not  resort  to  any  point  where  there  was 
a   Russian  establishment  without  the   permission  of 
the  governor  or  commander ;  and,  reciprocally,  that 
the  subjects  of  Russia  should  not  resort,  without  per- 
mission, to  any  establishment  of  the  United   States 
upon   the  northwest  coast.     The  sale   of   spirituou 
liquors,  or  fire-arms  or  other  arms,  powder  or  muni 
tions  of  war,  to  the  natives  was  forbidden.     Noth 
ing  was  said  in  the  treaty  itself  about   the  Asiati 
coast. 

Some  time  after  the  treaty  had  been  signed  the 


300  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

Russian- American  Company  made  loud  outcries  and 
exerted  special  influence  to  prevail  on  the  Russian 
government  to  send  new  instructions  to  their  minister. 
In  an  interview  on  August  23,  1824,  Baron  de  Tuyl 
related  his  perplexities  to  Mr.  Adams,  and  said  that 
he  would  like  an  explanatory  note  to  be  signed,  show- 
ing that  the  Russian  government  did  not  understand 
that  the  convention  would  give  liberty  to  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  to  trade  on  the  coast  of  Siberia 
and  in  the  Aleutian  Islands.  He  also  wanted  a  mod- 
ification of  the  treaty,  which  would  keep  vessels 
from  trading  north  of  the  fifty-seventh  degree.  Mr. 
Adams  represented  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  com- 
plying with  these  requests ;  that  owing  to  our  form  of 
government  no  explanatory  note  signed  simply  by  the 
Executive  would  be  sufficient ;  and  that  if  any  change 
was  to  be  made,  it  was  far  better  to  make  a  new  con- 
vention. He  advised  the  Russian  minister  to  wait 
until  the  treaty  was  ratified,  and  then  if  his  govern- 
ment, on  second  thought,  still  desired  it,  he  could  pre- 
sent his  note.  Baron  de  Tuyl,  who  himself  doubted 
about  the  wisdom  of  the  Russian  proposals,  accepted 
the  suggestion,  withdrew  the  memorandum  he  had 
presented,  and  begged  it  to  be  considered  as  non 
avenu.  The  treaty  was  ratified,  and  that  was  the  end  ^ 
of  the  Russian  proposal. 

This  dispute  with  Russia  made  a  far  deeper  im- 
pression than  we  should  now  think.     The  newspapers 


« 
FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  301 

were  full  of  paragraphs  and  squibs."^"  The  end  was, 
however,  very  satisfactory  to  us.  Mr.  Madison,  in 
writing  to  President  Monroe  on  August  5,  1824,  said : 

"  The  convention  with  Russia  is  a  propitious  event  in  sub- 
stituting amicable  adjustment  for  the  risks  of  hostile  collision. 
But  I  give  the  Emperor  little  credit  for  his  assent  to  the  princi- 
ple of  mare  liberum  in  the  North  Pacific.  His  pretensions 
were  so  absurd,  and  so  disgusting  to  the  maritime  world,  that 
he  could  not  do  better  than  retreat  from  them  through  the 
forms  of  negotiations.  It  is  well  that  the  cautious,  if  not  cour- 
teous, policy  of  England  toward  Russia  has  had  the  effect  of 
making  us,  in  the  public  eye,  the  leading  power  in  arresting 
her  expansive  ambition."  f 

In  May  and  June,  1822,  the  English  papers  had  a 
good  deal  to  say  about  the  subject,  and  the  London 
Times  remarked  : 

**  Luckily  for  the  world  the  United  States  of  America  have 
not  submitted  with  equal  patience  to  the  decrees  of  the  auto- 
crat. An  important  discussion  is  now  depending  between 
these  two  countries,  a  discussion  in  which  we,  however,  are 
more  deeply  interested  than  the  United  States." 

*  Here  is  one  from  the  Baltimore  Chronicle,  reprinted  in 
Niles'  Register  on  May  10,  1823  : 

"  Old  Neptune  one  morning  was  seen  on  the  rocks, 
Shedding  tears  by  the  pailful  and  tearing  his  locks  ; 
He  cried,  a  Land  Lubber  has  stole,  on  this  day. 
Full  four  thousand  miles  of  my  ocean  away  ; 
He  swallows  the  earth  (he  exclaims  with  emotion), 
And  then  to  quench  appetite,  slap  goes  the  ocean  ; 
Brother  Jove  must  look  out  for  his  skies,  let  me  tell  ye. 
Or  the  Russian  will  bury  them  all  in  his  belly." 

f  Madison's  Works,  iii.,  p.  446. 


302  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

This  was  preceded  and  followed  by  violent  abuse  of 
the  English  government  for  taking  no  steps  itself. 
The  Liverpool  Mercury  of  May  31st  followed  in 
much  the  same  strain.*  Sir  James  Mackintosh  did, 
however,  during  that  session  of  Parliament,  make  a 
question  of  that  subject.  In  the  subsequent  year,  on 
May  21,  1823,  he  again  raised  the  question,  and  Mr. 
Canning  replied  that  a  protest  on  the  part  of  England 
had  been  made  on  the  first  promulgation  of  those 
principles,  which  had  been  renewed  and  discussed  at 
the  Congress  of  Verona,  and  had  been  again  presented 
in  subsequent  negotiations  which  were  still  pending 
at  St.  Petersburg. 

The  fourth  article  of  the  treaty,  which  gave  for  ten 
years  the  right  of  fishing  and  trading  in  the  bays, 
creeks,  harbors,  etc.,  of  the  northwestern  coast,  ex- 
pired in  1834.  The  Russians  claimed  that,  in  spite  of 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty,  American  vessels  in  pur- 
suit of  their  fisheries  had  sold  spirituous  liquors  and 
fire-arms  to  the  natives  ;  and  the  Russian  minister, 
therefore,  by  instructions  from  his  government,  in- 
formed the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  expiration  of  the 
fourth  article  of  the  treaty,  and  begged  him  to  have  an 
ofificial  notification  of  some  kind  issued  to  that  effect. 
Russia  at  the  same  time  claimed  a  right  of  possession 
down  to  54°  40'  of  north  latitude.  Mr.  Forsyth  ob- 
jected to  an  ofificial  notification,  but  consented  to  an 
*  Niles'  Register,  July  27,  1822. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  303 

unofficial  announcement  in  the  Globe,  to  the  effect, 
that,  since  the  expiration  of  the  fourth  article,  Amer- 
ican vessels  would  be  bound  by  the  other  articles  of 
the  treaty,  and  could  frequent  those  parts  of  the  coast 
occupied  by  Russia  only  by  the  consent  of  the  Rus- 
sian commanders.  Mr.  Wilkins,  and  subsequently 
Mr.  Dallas,  our  ministers  to  St.  Petersburg,  were  in- 
structed to  negotiate  for  a  continuance,  either  in  per- 
petuity or  for  a  term  of  years,  of  the  fourth  article. 
We  refused  to  admit  that  we  had  implied  by  the  treaty 
of  1824  any  acknowledgment  of  the  right  of  Russia  to 
the  possession  of  the  coast  above  the  latitude  of  54° 
40'.  Mr.  Forsyth  argued  that  if  we  had  implied  any 
such  right,  Russia,  in  the  same  way,  would  have  im- 
plied the  right  of  the  United  States  up  to  that  limit ; 
whereas  by  a  subsequent  treaty  with  Great  Britain  in 
1825,  expressed  in  much  the  same  terms,  the  right  to 
the  same  territory  by  Great  Britain  was  also  acknowl- 
edged. Even  had  it  been  inferred  from  our  agreeing 
not  to  occupy  any  points  north  of  54°  40',  that  we 
acknowledged  the  Russian  right  to  the  whole  of  the 
coast,  it  did  not  follow  that  the  United  States  ever 
intended  to  abandon  the  right  gained  by  the  first 
article,  as  belonging  to  them  under  the  law  of  nations, 
of  frequenting  the  unoccupied  parts  of  the  coast  for 
purposes  of  fishing  or  trading  with  the  natives. 
Count  Nesselrode,  however,  without  attempting  to 
controvert  the  arguments  advanced  by  Mr.  Forsyth 


304  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  Mr.  Dallas,  refused  to  renew  the  fourth  article  of 
the  convention.  A  similar  refusal  was  made  to  Great 
Britain,  whose  rights  had  also  lapsed  in  the  year  1835. 
In  1839  the  charter  of  the  Russian- American  Com- 
pany was  renewed  for  twenty  years,  and  in  point  of 
fact  the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  those 
of  Great  Britain,  were  excluded  from  the  ports  and 
harbors  of  the  coast  of  Russian  America  from  that 
date."^ 

All  questions  that  might  possibly  arise  were  fully 
settled  by  the  treaty  of  March  30,  1867,  negotiated  by 
Mr.  Seward,  by  which,  for  the  sum  of  $7,203,000  in 
gold,  the  whole  of  the  Russian  possessions  in  Amer- 
ica, free  and  unencumbered  by  the  privileges  of  any 
company,  were  ceded  to  the  United  States. 

One  question,  however,  arose  out  of  this  treaty. 
Those  Russian  subjects  who  chose  to  remain  after 
three  years  had  the  right  of  becoming  Americans. 
They  had  churches  and  other  establishments  of  the 
Russian  Orthodox  Church.  In  order  to  provide  for 
their  spiritual  welfare  the  Russian  Synod  appointed 
an  archbishop,  with  his  seat  at  San  Francisco.  The 
American  charge  d'affaires,  believing  that  the  pre- 
cedent was  of  some  importance,  immediately  gave 
notice  of  this  appointment  to  his  Government  and 
suggested  that  some  action  be  taken.  The  Secretary 
of  State,  however,  gave  him  no  instructions  on  the 
*  Congressional  Doc,  Session  1838-39. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  305 

subject,  and  without  them  he  did  not  feel  authorized 
to  protest.  At  the  same  time  he  felt  that  the  case 
was  very  different  from  the  appointment  of  bishops 
of  the  Catholic  Church  by  the  Pope.  The  Russian 
Synod  is  a  part  of  the  temporal  institutions  of  the 
Russian  empire,  and  a  Russian  bishop  in  America 
is  paid  by,  and  is  an  official  of,  the  Russian  govern- 
ment as  distinguished  from  the  Russian  Church,  and 
is  yet  allowed  to  exercise  an  authority  in  the  United 
States  without  any  control  over  him  by  the  United 
States  authorities,  even  a  control  such  as  is  exercised 

over  consular  officers, 
20 


306  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 


Z^.— THE   SOUND  DUES. 

Origin  of  these  Dues.  —  Tariff  of  Christianople.  —  Clay.  — 
Wheaton. — Webster's  Report. — Burden  upon  Trade.— 
Upshur's  Report. — Buchanan's  Instructions  to  Flenniken. 
— Our  Proposition  for  Compensation. — Its  Withdrawal  by 
Mr.  Marcy. — Our  Notice  to  Terminate  our  Treaty. — Dan- 
ish Proposition  for  Capitalization. — President  Pierce's 
Message. — European  Congress. — Treaty  of  Capitalization. 
— Our  Separate  Treaty. 

From  an  early  time  Denmark  had  claimed  the  right 
of  imposing  duties  and  marks  of  ceremonial  respect 
on  all  merchant  vessels  passing  through  the  Sound  or 
the  great  Belts  that  connect  the  Baltic  with  the  North 
Sea.  We  find  mention  of  these  dues  as  early  as  13 19, 
when  they  were  to  some  extent  regulated.  Com- 
plaints of  their  exorbitant  character  were  made  at  dif- 
ferent times,  and  by  treaties  and  conventions  they 
were  lowered.  They  were  finally  regulated  by  the 
treaty  of  Christianople  in  1645,  explained  by  another 
treaty  in  1701,  and  continued  in  that  form  up  to  the 
present  century.  The  right  to  impose  them  was  ta- 
citly admitted  by  all  the  commercial  states  of  Europe. 
The  tariff  of  duties  imposed  by  the  treaty  of  Chris- 
tianople was  somewhat  peculiar.  The  theory  was  that 
one  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  all  the  articles  was  to  be 
paid  ;  and  a  tariff  was  drawn  up  commuting  these  to 
specific  duties  on  the  chief  articles  of  commerce  based 


FREE   NAVIGATION  0F_  RIVERS.  307 

on  the  value  at  the  time.  In  the  lapse  of  two  cen- 
turies not  only  had  the  actual  value  in  money  of  ar- 
ticles of  commerce  decreased  so  that  the  specific  du- 
ties represented  three,  four,  and  five  per  cent,  of  their 
value,  but  many  new  articles  of  commerce  were  carried 
into  the  Baltic,  the  valuation  of  which  was  arbitrary. 
Countries,  besides,  were  divided  into  privileged  and 
non-privileged,  the  former  meaning  those  who  had 
made  special  treaties  with  Denmark :  non-privileged 
nations  paid  duties  a  fifth  higher. 

The  income  derived  from  the  Sound  dues  was, 
owing  to  the  large  commerce  of  the  Baltic,  a  very 
important  branch  of  the  Danish  revenue,  amounting  to 
two  and  sometimes  two  and  one-half  millions  of  rix- 
dollars  per  annum.  Fifty  years  ago  our  commerce  on 
the  Baltic,  which  was  very  little  with  Denmark  itself, 
brought  into  use  about  one  hundred  vessels  a  year. 
As  American  vessels,  having  to  cross  the  ocean,  were 
of  larger  size  than  those  of  European  nations,  we  paid 
higher  duties  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  vessels, 
averaging  some  years  as  much  as  $100,000. 

The  attention  of  our  Government  was  first  appar- 
ently called  to  the  subject  in  1826,  when  Mr.  Clay 
succeeded  in  negotiating  a  general  treaty  of  friendship, 
commerce,  and  navigation  with  Denmark,  by  which 
vessels  of  the  United  States,  in  passing  the  Sound  or 
the  Belts,  were  not  to  pay  higher  duties  than  those 
paid  by  the  most  favored  nation.     Mr.  Clay  did  not 


308  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

apparently  question  the  prescriptive  right  of  Den- 
mark to  take  these  duties,  and  was  satisfied  to  reduce 
them  thus  by  a  fifth  of  their  amount.  Mr.  Wheaton, 
during  his  residence  as  minister  in  Denmark,  from 
1827  to  1835,  studied  the  histor}^  and  the  effects  of 
the  Sound  dues  ;  and  from  his  despatches  Mr.  Web- 
ster, soon  after  entering  upon  his  office  as  Secretary 
of  State,  made  a  report  to  the  President,  with  a  view 
of  beginning  negotiations  for  a  reduction  of  the  duties ; 
for  there  was  at  that  time  a  general  movement  on  the 
part  of  the  northern  powers  of  Europe  for  the  purpose 
of  obtaining  a  modification  of  the  regulations  of  the 
Sound,  which  would  remove  certain  grievances  which 
were  a  great  burden  upon  commerce.  Apart  from 
the  Sound  dues  themselves,  there  were  charges  of 
light-money,  pass-money,  etc.,  which  caused  a  delay 
at  Elsinore,  where  vessels  were  obliged  to  stop  for 
the  purpose  of  paying  the  dues ;  and,  as  their  collec- 
tion was  attended  by  vexatious  delays  and  unneces- 
sary ceremonies,  the  port  charges  sometimes  amounted 
to  a  large  sum.  Vessels  bound  to,  or  returning  from, 
ports  in  the  Baltic  were  obliged  to  lower  their  top- 
sails before  the  castle  of  Kronenberg  in  token  of  re- 
spect ;  to  submit  to  an  examination  of  their  cargoes 
at  Elsinore ;  frequently  to  encounter  a  delay  arising 
from  the  limited  number  of  hours  during  which  the 
custom-house  was  open,  which  was  tedious,  and  in 
that  sea  often  dangerous.     Mr.  Webster  says  : 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  309 

"  The  amount  of  our  commerce  with  Denmark  direct  is  in- 
considerable compared  with  our  transactions  with  Sweden, 
Russia,  and  the  ports  of  Prussia,  and  the  Germanic  associa- 
tion of  the  ports  of  the  Baltic  ;  but  the  sum  annually  paid  to 
that  government  in  Sound  dues,  and  the  consequent  port 
charges,  by  our  vessels  alone  is  estimated  at  something  over 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars.  The  great  proportion  of  this 
amount  is  paid  by  the  articles  of  tobacco,  sugar,  cotton,  and 
rice,  the  first  and  last  of  these  paying  a  duty  of  about  three 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  reckoning  every  value  from  the  places 
from  which  they  came.  By  a  list  published  atElsinore  in  1840 
it  appears  that,  between  April  and  November  of  that  year, 
seventy-two  American  vessels,  a  comparatively  small  number, 
lowered  their  top-sails  before  the  castle  of  Kronenberg.  These 
weee  all  bound  up  the  Sound  to  ports  on  the  Baltic,  with  cargoes 
composed  in  part  of  the  above-named  products,  upon  which 
alone  according  to  the  tariff  was  paid  a  sum  exceeding  forty 
thousand  dollars  for  these  dues.  Having  disposed  of  these 
cargoes  they  returned  laden  with  the  usual  productions  of  the 
countries  on  the  Baltic,  on  which,  in  like  manner,  were  paid 
duties  on  going  out  of  the  Sound,  again  acknowledging  the  trib- 
ute by  an  inconvenient  and  sometimes  hazardous  ceremony.''  * 

At  the  time  when  Mr.  Webster  took  up  this  sub- 
ject England,  owing  to  the  complaints  of  her  mer- 
chants, was  negotiating  with  Denmark,  and  eleven 
days  after  the  date  of  Mr.  Webster's  report  an  ar- 
rangement was  made  far  more  satisfactory  to  the  com- 
mercial world.  The  specific  duties  imposed  by  the 
treaty  of  Christianople  remained  unchanged,  but  the 
tariff  for  non-enumerated  articles  was  carefully  revised 

*  Report  of  May  24,  1841,  Webster's  Works,  vi.,  p.  406. 


310  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  greatly  reduced,  although  the  system  operated 
unequally.  The  tariff  on  raw  sugar,  for  example,  was 
reduced  from  nine  to  five  stivers  per  one  hundred 
pounds.  But  even  this  amounted  to  about  two  per 
cent,  on  the  value  of  common  sugar ;  and  it  was 
found  upon  examination  that,  owing  to  Russia,  they 
equalized  the  duty  upon  all  unrefined  sugars,  and  only 
the  better  kinds  of  white  Havana  were  sent  up  the 
Baltic,  so  that  the  commissioners  had  fixed  upon  a 
valuation  which  nearly  doubled  the  proportion  to  be 
paid  by  the  low-priced  sugars.  The  rule  requiring 
the  lowering  of  the  top-sails,  in  token  of  respect,  was 
abolished,  important  reductions  were  made  in  port 
charges,  the  hours  of  the  custom-house  were  ex- 
tended, and  the  visitation  of  vessels  dispensed  with. 
Upon  receiving  information  of  the  new  tariff  and  regu- 
lations, Mr.  Webster  expressed  satisfaction,  and  as  far 
as  he  was  concerned  the  correspondence  closed. 

Not  every  one,  however,  was  as  satisfied  as  Mr. 
Webster.  Prussia,  especially,  felt  very  much  ag- 
grieved, and  for  a  long  time  hesitated  about  accepting 
the  new  tariff,  as  the  dues  at  the  entrance  of  the 
Baltic  were  an  obstacle  to  all  Prussian  commerce. 
The  merchants  of  the  sea-towns  made  strong  repre- 
sentations to  the  government,  and  a  vigorous  effort  was 
made  for  the  capitalization  or  entire  abolition  of  the 
duties.  Owing,  however,  to  the  personal  influence  of 
the  King  of  Denmark,  and  the  influence  upon  Prussia 


FREE   NAVIGATION   OF  RIVERS.  31I 

from  England  and  Denmark,  Prussia  in  1846  accepted 
the  new  tariff,  and  even  did  more.  Following  the 
example  of  Russia,  it  demanded  attestations  of  having 
paid  the  duties  at  Elsinore  before  a  ship  was  allowed 
to  discharge  its  cargo. 

The  hopes  of  the  mercantile  world  now  rested  on 
the  efforts  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Upshur,  who 
had  succeeded  Mr.  Webster  in  1843,  made  another 
communication  to  the  President  on  the  subject,  in 
which  he  took  stronger  grounds.     He  said  : 

"  Denmark  continues  to  this  day  without  any  legal  tide  to 
levy  exceedingly  strange  duties  on  all  goods  passing  the  Sound. 
Denmark  cannot  lay  claim  to  these  duties  upon  any  principle 
either  of  nature  or  of  the  law  of  nations,  nor  from  any  other 
reason  than  that  of  antiquated  custom.  It  renders  no  service 
in  consideration  of  that  tax,  and  has  not  even  such  rights 
as  the  power  to  enforce  it  would  give.  Great  and  general  is 
the  discontent  felt  by  all  nations  interested  in  the  Baltic  trade 
on  account  of  that  needless  and  humiliating  tribute.  For  the 
United  States  the  time  has  come  when  they  can  appropriately 
take  decisive  steps  to  free  their  Baltic  trade  of  this  pressure." 

The  report  of  Mr.  Upshur  created  considerable  ex- 
citement and  consternation  in  Denmark,  but  his  plans 
came  to  an  end  with  the  accident  on  the  Princeton  in 
which  he  lost  his  life.  His  successor,  Mr.  Calhoun, 
attempted  nothing  beyond  the  collection  of  informa- 
tion. 

Meanwhile  every  year  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
of  Stettin  presented  the  subject  again  to  the  Prus- 


312  AMERICAN'  DIPLOMACY. 

sian  government  as  a  canker  on  Prussian  commerce ; 
and  after  the  troubles  between  Prussia  and  Den- 
mark in  consequence  of  the  Slesvig-Holstein  dififi- 
culties,  as  it  appeared  likely  that  in  arranging  the 
peace  the  Prussians  might  insist  on  the  total  ab- 
olition of  the  Sound  dues,  Mr.  Buchanan,  then 
Secretary  of  State,  instructed  Mr.  Flenniken,  our 
charg6  d'affaires,  to  negotiate  for  a  new  treaty  of 
commerce,  providing  for  exemption  frOm  the  Sound 
dues — a  perpetual  exemption,  if  possible.  As  there 
would  be  considerable  delay  in  obtaining  an  act  of 
Congress  giving  notice  of  the  termination  of  the  ex- 
isting convention  with  Denmark,  and  there  would  be 
twelve  months'  delay  after  giving  such  notice,  while  a 
new  treaty,  if  made,  would  cut  off  the  Sound  dues  two 
years  earlier  than  could  be  done  otherwise,  Mr.  Flen- 
niken was  empowered  to  offer  to  the  Danish  govern- 
ment, $250,000  as  an  indemnity  for  the  amount  which 
would  thus  be  lost,  provided  that  the  exemption 
from  the  Sound  dues  should  be  made  perpetual. 
This  proposition,  which  was  expressly  stated  to  be 
not  for  the  purchase  of  a  right  enjoyed  by  Denmark, 
but  as  an  equitable  equivalent  for  that  branch  of  her 
revenue  which  she  would  thus  give  up,  and  mainly  to 
furnish  a  liberal  precedent  on  the  part  of  the  Govern- 
ment, which  was  strictly  under  no  obligations  to  pay, 
in  order  that  Denmark  might  be  enabled  to  settle 
profitably  with   European  nations,  who  were,  in  fact, 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  313 

under  obligations  to  submit,  was  received  with  satis- 
faction by  the  Danish  ministry.  The  resumption  of 
hostilities  with  Germany,  however,  broke  off  the  ne- 
gotiations. 

Mr.  Marcy,  on  July  18,  1853,  instructed  the  new 
charg6  d'affaires,  Mr.  Beddinger,  to  press  the  matter 
of  the  Sound  dues  to  a  conclusion ;  and  in  his  de- 
spatch, after  giving  an  account  of  the  history  of  the 
Sound  dues,  took  the  decisive  stand  that  the  United 
States  can  recognize  no  immemorial  usage  as  obliga- 
tory when  it  conflicts  with  natural  privileges  and  in- 
ternational law.  The  previous  offer  for  payment  was 
withdrawn,  and  the  Secretary  declined  authorizing 
the  offer  to  Denmark  of  any  compensation  for  the  re- 
moval of  thaf  as  a  favor  which  we  had  demanded  as 
a  right.  There  was  great  delay  at  Copenhagen, 
partly  on  account  of  the  general  state  of  European 
politics,  and  partly,  in  the  opinion  of  our  legation 
as  well  as  of  the  Prussian  mercantile  bodies,  through 
the  influence  of  Russia,  who  desired  to  keep  in  the 
hands  of  Denmark  the  power  of  closing  the  Baltic  in 
case  of  need.  In  March,  1854,  the  Danish  govern- 
ment intimated  that  they  would  make  an  effort  to 
enter  into  an  arrangement  with  all  the  powers  for  the 
abolition  of  the  Sound  tolls,  upon  receiving  a  certain 
compensation.  But  nothing  was  done  until  Presi- 
dent Pierce,  in  his  annual  message  of  December  4, 
1854,  recommended  to  Congress  that  notice  should 


314  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

be  given  for  terminating  the  convention  of  1826. 
The  Danish  legation  at  Washington  immediately  pre- 
sented a  statement  of  what  the  Danes  considered  the 
proper  nature  of  the  right  they  claimed.  The  sub- 
stance was,  that  the  right  of  Denmark  to  the  Sound 
dues  is  a  right  existing  under  the  laws  of  nature  by 
immemorial  prescription,  and  therefore  independent 
of  all  treaties  ;  that  the  abrogation  of  the  convention 
of  1 8 16  would,  therefore,  not  restore  any  rights  to  the 
United  States,  or  take  any  from  Denmark.  As  the 
Danish  government  steadily  refused  to  listen  to  any 
proposition  for  the  abolition  of  the  dues  without  an 
equivalent,  and  as  the  United  States  as  steadily  re- 
fused to  offer  any  bribes  for  that  which  was  clearly 
our  right,  notice  was  given,  April  14,  ^55,  that  after 
the  expiration  of  a  year  the  convention  would  be 
terminated. 

Finding  herself  thus  hardly  pressed — for  the  action 
of  the  United  States  found  sympathy  in  the  whole 
commercial  world — Denmark,  in  October,  1855,  sug- 
gested a  project  of  capitalizing  the  Sound  dues,  pro- 
posing that  the  quota  to  be  paid  by  each  nation 
should  be  estimated  by  the  quantity  of  merchandise 
passing  through  the  Sound  and  Belts,  as  far  as  the 
Sound  dues  proper  were  concerned  ;  and  by  the  num- 
ber of  vessels  to  each  flag,  as  regards  the  light-money 
and  similar  duties.  Two  conditions  were  made :  i, 
That  this  arrangement  should  be  concurred  in  simul- 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  315 

taneously  by  all  the  powers  interested ;  and  2,  that 
the  affair  in  question  should  be  treated  not  as  a  com- 
mercial or  money  transaction,  but  as  a  political  mat- 
ter. This  last  condition  was  sufficient  to  make  the 
United  States  decline  to  take  any  part  in  this  Euro- 
pean convention.  The  cogent  reasons,  as  stated  by 
President  Pierce,  in  his  message  of  December,  1855, 
were  as  follows : 

"  One  is  that  Denmark  does  not  offer  to  submit  to  the  con- 
vention the  question  of  her  right  to  levy  the  Sound  dues  ;  and, 
the  second  is,  that  if  the  convention  were  allowed  to  take  cog- 
nizance of  that  particular  question,  still  it  would  not  be  com- 
petent to  deal  with  the  immediate  and  important  international 
principle  involved,  which  affects  rights  in  other  cases  of  navi- 
gation and  commercial  freedom,  as  well  as  that  of  access  to  the 
Baltic.  Above  all,  by  the  express  terms  of  the  proposition,  it 
is  contemplated  that  the  consideration  of  the  Sound  dues  shall 
be  commingled  with,  and  made  subordinate  to  a  matter  wholly 
extraneous — the  balance  of  power  among  the  governments  of 
Europe.  While,  however,  rejecting  this  proposition,  and  in- 
sisting on  the  right  of  free  transit  into  and  from  the  Baltic,  I 
have  expressed  to  Denmark  a  willingness  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  to  share  liberally  with  other  powers  in  compen- 
sating her  for  any  advantages  which  commerce  shall  hereafter 
derive  from  expenditures  made  by  her  for  the  improvement 
and  safety  of  the  navigation  of  the  Sound  or  Belts." 

The  European  Congress,  nevertheless,  met  at  Co- 
penhagen in  the  winter  of  1856,  and  its  result  was  the 
treaty  of  March  14,  1857,  by  which  the  Sound  dues 
were  forever  abolished,  in  consideration  of  a  payment 


3l6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

once  for  all  of  35,000,000  rix-dollars.  In  fixing  this 
sum  the  Danes  had  reduced  their  claims,  setting  the 
annual  income  at  1,750,000  instead  of  2,250,000  rix- 
dollars,  which  it  had  produced  for  many  years. 
Twenty  years'  purchase  gave  25,000,000  rix-dollars. 
The  proportion  of  England  was  more  than  one-third 
of  the  whole;  that  of  the  United  States  was  2,100,- 
000  rix-dollars,  or  $1,050,000. 

The  United  States,  for  reasons  already  given,  re- 
fused to  become  a  party  to  this  treaty,  and  subse- 
quently, on  April  11,  1857,  made  a  similar  treaty,  by 
which  717,829  rix-dollars,  or  $393,011  United  States 
currency,  were  paid  to  Denmark,  in  consideration  of 
an  agreement  to  keep  up  lights,  buoys,  and  pilot  es- 
tablishments in  those  waters,  and  of  the  total  and  per- 
petual abolition  of  all  dues  on  American  vessels.* 

*  The  official  correspondence  is  found  in  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc, 
No.  108,  33d  Congress,  ist  Session,  and  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No. 
28,  35th  Congress,  1st  Session. 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  317 


^.-THE   BOSPHORUS  AND  THE  DARDANELLES. 

When  the  whole  of  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea 
were  in  the  exclusive  possession  of  Turkey,  that  sea 
was  entirely  closed  even  to  the  commercial  vessels  of 
foreign  powers.  When  Peter  the  Great,  in  1700,  at- 
tempted to  obtain  the  right  for  his  merchant  vessels 
to  trade  on  the  Black  Sea,  the  reply  of  the  Turks 
was  : 

"  The  Ottoman  Porte  guards  the  Black  Sea  like  a  pure  and 
undefiled  virgin  which  no  one  dares  to  touch  ;  and  the  Sultan 
would  sooner  permit  outsiders  to  enter  his  harem  than  consent 
to  the  sailing  of  foreign  vessels  on  the  Black  Sea.  This  can 
only  be  done  when  the  Turkish  empire  shall  have  been  turned 
upside  down."  * 

When  this  process  was  accomplished  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  the  Russians  had  made  large  acquisitions 
on  its  shores,  they  had,  according  to  the  common  law 
of  European  nations,  a  right  to  navigate  the  Black 
Sea  and  pass  outward  into  the  Mediterranean.  But 
the  Turks  at  this  time  recognized  no  principles  of 
international  law  in  common  with  Europe,  and  the 
right  could  be  only  obtained  by  the  express  stipula- 
tions of  treaties.  The  first  of  these  stipulating  for  the 
free  navigation  of  the  straits  by  merchant  vessels  was 
made  with  Russia  in  1774,  followed  by  one  with 
*  Schuyler,  Peter  the  Great,  i.,  p.  362. 


3  1 8  AMERl  CA  N  DIPL  OMA  C  V. 

Austria  in  1784,  with  Great  Britain  in  1799,  ^ith 
France  in  1802,  and  with  Prussia  in  1806.  The 
United  States  had  no  treaty  rights  on  this  subject 
until  1830,  when  they  were  given 

"  The  liberty  to  pass  the  canal  of  the  imperial  residence,  and 
go  and  come  in  the  Black  Sea  in  like  manner  as  vessels  of  the 
most  favored  nations." 

And  the  treaty  of  1862  provided  that  clearance  re- 
quired for  the  passage  of  an  American  vessel  should 
be  delivered  with  the  least  possible  delay.  By  the 
treaty  of  Paris  in  1856,  as  modified  by  the  treaty  of 
London  in  1871,  the  Black  Sea  was  thrown  open  to 
merchant  vessels  of  all  nations ;  but  the  straits  are 
closed  to  ships  of  war,  except  that  the  Sultan  has  the 
faculty  of  opening  them  in  time  of  peace  to  the  war 
vessels  of  friendly  and  allied  powers  in  case  he  deems 
it  necessary  for  carrying  out  the  stipulations  of  th"e 
treaty  of  Paris.  The  United  States  have  never  ad- 
hered to  either  of  these  treaties,  and  have  always 
maintained  that  their  right  to  send  ships  of  war  into 
the  Black  Sea  cannot  be  legally  taken  from  them  by 
any  arrangement  concluded  by  European  powers  to 
which  they  are  not  parties.  No  attempt,  however, 
has  ever  been  made  to  exercise  these  rights.  All 
American  ships  of  war  have,  while  reserving  all  ques- 
tion of  right,  asked  permission  of  the  Porte  to  pass 
the  Dardanelles. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS,  319 


/^.-THE   RIVER  PLATE. 

River  Systems  of  South  America. — European  Intervention  at 
Buenos  Ay  res. — Decree  of  Urquiza. — Treaty  of  San  Jose 
de  Flores. — Difficulties. — Solution  of  Mr.  Schenck. — Op- 
position of  Brazil. — The  Water  Witch. — Trouble  with 
Paraguay. 

Civilization  in  South  America  is,  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent, dependent  upon  the  river  systems,  and  by  the 
two  great  rivers,  the  Amazon  and  the  river  Plate  (La 
Plata)  access  is  gained  to  the  whole  interior  of  the 
continent.  The  foreign  relations  of  a  state  like  Para- 
guay are  entirely  dependent  upon  the  freedom  of  river 
navigation,  for  it  has  no  access  to  the  ocean  except 
by  the  rivers  Paraguay  and  La  Plata.  Although  Bo- 
livia has  a  small  extent  of  sea-coast  and  one  port — 
Cobija — for  commercial  purposes  it  can  be  more  easily 
reached  by  the  Madeira,  a  branch  of  the  Amazon,  or 
the  Pilcomayo,  a  branch  of  the  Paraguay.  Through 
the  Amazon  also  there  is  access  to  the  eastern  parts 
of  Peru,  Ecuador,  and  New  Grenada,  and  even  dur- 
ing the  rainy  season  to  portions  of  Venezuela. 

The  attainment  of  the  independence  of  the  various 
states  of  South  America  was  followed  by  intestine 
struggles,  and  during  these  the  government  of  Buenos 
Ayres,  basing  its  action  on  a  treaty  concluded  in  1825, 
between  the  United  Provinces  of  Rio  de  la  Plata  and 


320  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Great  Britain,  claimed  the  right  of  opening  or  shut- 
ting at  pleasure  the  river  La  Plata,  and  thus  cutting 
off  the  access  of  Paraguay  and  of  the  interior  prov- 
inces to  the  sea.  England  and  France  vainly  strove 
to  bring  over  General  Rosas  to  more  liberal  views 
with  regard  to  river  navigation  ;  but  he  held  firm. 
When  a  joint  intervention  was  proposed  in  1845  by 
England  and  France  in  the  affairs  of  La  Plata,  Guizot 
wrote  : 

"We  must  ask  as  an  accessory  and  consequence  of  our  in- 
tervention, the  application  of  the  principles  established  by  the 
Congress  at  Vienna  for  the  free  navigation  of  rivers  in  relation 
to  those  which,  flowing  from  the  frontiers  of  Brazil  and  Para- 
guay, throw  themselves  into  the  Atlantic." 

England,  however,  on  November  24,  1849,  signed  a 
treaty  with  Rosas  in  its  own  interest,  which  recognized 
the  navigation  of  the  Parana  as  being  purely  internal. 
A  similar  treaty  made  by  France  was  rejected  by  the 
National  Assembly.  The  closing  of  water  communi- 
cations, together  with  the  struggle  at  Montevideo, 
finally  wearied  the  patience  of  the  interior  states, 
and  General  Urquiza,  the  governor  of  the  state  of 
Entre  Rios,  in  conjunction  with  the  Brazilian  gov- 
ernment, first  defeated  General  Oribe  before  Monte- 
video, and  subsequently  broke  the  power  of  Rosas. 
By  one  of  the  five  treaties  which  Urquiza  made  with 
Brazil  on  October  12  and  13,  185 1,  the  navigation  of 
the  Uruguay  and  its  branches  was  declared  common 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS,  32 1 

to  the  contracting  states,  and  the  other  riparian  states 
of  La  Plata  were  invited  to  agree  to  a  similar  arrange- 
ment, so  as  to  make  free  the  navigation  of  the  Parana 
and  the  Paraguay.  One  of  the  first  measures  of 
Urquiza,  after  the  defeat  of  Rosas  and  his  own  elec- 
tion as  provisional  director  of  the  Argentine  Con- 
federation, was  a  decree  of  August  28,  1852,  declaring 
the  navigation  of  the  rivers  in  the  Confederation  free 
to  all  flags. 

The  United  States  was  the  first  country  to  avail 
itself  of  these  new  privileges,  and  immediately  fitted 
out  the  steamer  Water  Witch,  under  the  command 
of  Lieutenant  Thomas  Jefferson  Page,  to  explore  and 
survey  all  the  rivers  emptying  into  La  Plata.  At  the 
same  time  Mr.  Robert  C.  Schenck,  our  minister  at 
Rio  de  Janeiro,  was  instructed  to  go  to  Buenos  Ayres, 
and  together  with  Mr.  John  S.  Pendleton,  our  charge 
d'affaires  there,  to  conclude  all  necessary  treaties  re- 
quired by  our  commercial  interests,  and  for  the  open- 
ings of  the  rivers.  Before  his  arrival,  Mr.  Pendleton 
had  already  gone  up  to  Asuncion  and  concluded  a 
commercial  treaty  with  Paraguay,  on  March  4,  1853, 
which  provided  also  for  the  free  navigation  of  the 
river  Paraguay  as  far  as  the  dominions  of  the  empire 
of  Brazil,  and  of  the  right  side  of  the  Parana  through- 
out all  its  course  belonging  to  the  republic. 

The  English  at  the  same  time  had  empowered  Sir 

Charles  Hotham,  and  the  French  their   minister  at 
21 


^22  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Rio  de  Janeiro,  the  Chevalier  St.  Georges,  to  negoti- 
ate similar  treaties  for  free  navigation  with  the  Ar- 
gentine Confederation.  As  the  object  of  the  three 
governments  was  exactly  the  same,  the  plenipoten- 
tiaries agreed  to  work  together,  and  the  main  burden 
of  the  negotiation  was  entrusted  to  Mr.  Schenck. 
Buenos  Ayres,  where  the  plenipotentiaries  lived,  was 
in  a  state  of  close  siege  and  blockade,  the  province  of 
Buenos  Ayres  having  expressed  an  intention  of  seced- 
ing from  the  Confederation,  and  having  refused  to  re- 
cognize the  authority  of  General  Urquiza.  It  was 
necessary  for  the  plenipotentiaries  to  go  backward 
and  forward  between  the  city  and  the  camp  of  Ur- 
quiza under  escort.  They  endeavored  in  vain  to 
mediate  between  the  contending  parties,  and  finally, 
when  the  squadron  of  the  Confederation  was  treach- 
erously surrendered  to  the  government  of  Buenos 
Ayres,  General  Urquiza  retired,  and  the  plenipoten- 
tiaries followed  him  to  his  camp  at  San  Jose  de  Flores, 
where  separate  but  identical  treaties,  providing  for 
the  perpetual  free  navigation  of  the  rivers  Parana  and 
Uruguay  were  signed  on  July  lo,  1853.  At  the  last 
moment  two  difficulties  arose — one  with  regard  to 
the  little  island  of  Martin  Garcia,  which  was  in  a 
position,  if  held  by  Buenos  Ayres,  to  impede  free 
navigation,  and  of  which  Urquiza  desired  the  nego- 
tiating countries  to  guarantee  the  possession  to  the 
Argentine  Confederation.     Mr.  Schenck,  at  least,  did 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  323 

not  feel  authorized  to  give  the  guarantee  of  the 
United  States,  and  finally  it  was  agreed  to  insert  a 
clause  that  the  contracting  parties  should  "  agree  to 
use  their  influence  to  prevent  the  possession  of  the 
said  island  from  being  retained  or  held  by  any  state 
of  the  river  Plate  or  its  confluents  which  shall  not 
have  given  its  adhesion  to  the  principle  of  their  free 
navigation."  This  influence  might  be  greater  or  less, 
according  to  circumstances,  and  it  was  never  actually 
necessary  to  use  force.  The  other  point  was  a  con- 
stitutional one.  The  constitution  of  the  Argentine 
Confederation  had  been  modelled  after  that  of  the 
United  States,  which  in  many  places  it  had  copied 
word  for  word.  A  special  article,  however,  had  been 
inserted,  that  the  navigation  of  the  interior  rivers  of 
the  Confederation  could  be  made  free  to  all  the  world, 
subject  only  to  regulations  to  be  established  by  the 
national  authority.  It  was  suggested  that  the  pro- 
posed treaties  would  be  in  conflict  with  this  article  of 
the  constitution.  As  the  whole  subject  had  been 
removed  from  the  treaty-making  power,  and  left  only 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  it  was  claimed 
that  the  legislative  power  was  the  only  national  au- 
thority that  could  prescribe  the  needed  regulations  for 
such  free  navigation.  The  plenipotentiaries  at  first 
thought  their  case  hopeless;  but  Mr.  Schenck  suc- 
ceeded in  satisfying  General  Urquiza  that  the  proper 
interpretation  of  the  constitution  was  that  treaties, 


324  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

regularly  concluded  either  by  the  provisional  Execu- 
tive or  made  by  the  President  and  approved  by  Con- 
gress after  the  organization  under  the  constitution, 
were  to  be  taken,  as  in  the  United  States,  as  "  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land,"  and  that  "  regulations  "  es- 
tablished by  treaty  must  be  considered  as  much  sanc- 
tioned by  "  national  authority "  as  if  enacted  in  the 
shape  of  statute  law.  ^ 

After  the  treaty  had  been  signed  and  ratified  by 
General  Urquiza,  the  province  of  Buenos  Ayres  made 
a  protest,  declaring  that  the  treaty  was  not  binding 
upon  her,  for  she  had  refused  to  be  represented  at  the 
Constituent  Congress,  and  was  therefore,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  an  independent  state.  Considering, 
however,  that  Urquiza  was  the  legal  representative  of 
the  other  thirteen  provinces  of  the  Argentine  Con- 
federation, the  powers  thought  best  to  disregard  this 
protest  of  Buenos  Ayres,  leaving  her  to  acknowledge 
the  treaty  in  the  future,  or  to  make  new  treaties  with 
them  to  the  same  effect.  The  only  reply  made  was 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty  by  the  United  States, 
Great  Britain,  and  Prance.  The  Brazilian  govern- 
ment, whose  aim  it  was  to  keep  the  navigation  of 
these  rivers  solely  to  the  riparian  states,  also  objected, 
and  the  Brazilian  minister  in  Washington  presented 
to  our   Government  a  protest,   dated   November   7, 

*  Despatch  of  Mr.  Schenck  ;  see  La  Plata,  the  Argentine 
Confederation,  and  Paraguay,  by  T.  J.  Page,  p.  575. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  325 

1853,  against  the  treaties  made  with  Urquiza,  on  the 
ground  that  "they  may  prove  detrimental  to  the 
rights  which  Brazil  possesses  as  a  sovereign  nation." 
Mr.  Marcy  replied  to  this  by  a  note  of  December 
1 6th,  in  which  he  disclaimed  any  intention  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  of  violating,  any  rights  of 
Brazil,  but  so  long  as  no  actual  infringement  was 
proved,  and  merely  its  possibility  suggested,  refused 
to  take  the  protest  into  account. 

Meanwhile  the  steamer  Water  Witch,  which  had 
been  of  much  service  during  the  negotiations,  con- 
tinued its  explorations  and  made  careful  surveys  of  a 
great  part  of  the  river  system.  Lopez,  the  President 
of  Paraguay,  at  first  objected  very  much  to  allowing, 
even  for  scientific  purposes,  a  war  vessel  to  navigate 
the  Paraguayan  rivers,  on  the  ground  that  Brazil 
might  demand  the  same  favor,  and  until  a  treaty  of 
limits  had  been  made  with  that  country  it  might 
prove  a  dangerous  precedent.  He,  however,  finally 
yielded,  and  even  the  Brazilian  government,  owing  to 
the  representations  of  Mr.  Schenck  and  his  successor, 
Mr.  Trousdale,  allowed  the  expedition  to  enter  the 
Brazilian  portion  of  the  Paraguay. 

A  series  of  unfortunate  incidents  now  occurred 
which  prevented  the  final  ratification  of  the  treaty 
with  Paraguay,  and  brought  that  country  into  hostile 
relations  with  the  United  States.  Our  Government 
had  appointed  as  consul  at  Paraguay  Mr.  Edward  A. 


326  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Hopkins,  who  had,  in  pursuance  of  a  mistaken  policy, 
been  allowed  to  engage  in  business  on  his  own  ac- 
count. He  was  a  man  somewhat  visionary,  and  filled 
with  chimerical  ideas,  and  seemed  to  aim  at  acquiring 
a  predominating  influence  in  the  Plate  country.  He 
used  his  position  as  consul  not  only  to  carry  out 
these  projects,  but  to  assist  him  in  his  commercial 
enterprises.  Besides  cigar-factories  and  other  enter- 
prises, he  had  started  a  steamer  company,  of  which 
he  called  himself  the  agent  general.  He  had,  in 
various  ways  made  himself  obnoxious  to  President 
Lopez,  who,  under  a  republican  name,  possessed  ab- 
solute power,  and  their  relations  were  already  strained, 
when  an  insult  offered  to  the  consul's  brother  by 
some  soldier,  who  was  driving  cattle,  brought  both 
parties  to  such  extremities  that,  although  satisfaction 
was  given  for  the  insult,  Hopkins'  exequatur  was  with- 
drawn, and  he,  as  well  as  the  other  Americans  en- 
gaged in  business  at  Asuncion,  was  obliged  to  leave 
the  country.  Just  at  that  time  the  treaty  made  with 
the  United  States  was  sent  to  Lieutenant  Page  for  the 
exchange  of  ratifications.  It  had  been  so  carelessly 
drawn,  through  the  negligence  of  Mr.  Pendleton,  that 
the  Senate  had  found  it  necessary  to  make  thirty-two 
amendments,  most  of  which  were  merely  formal  ones ; 
for  in  few  places  was  even  the  name  of  our  Govern- 
ment given  correctly.  The  English  clerk  who  had 
drawn  up  the  treaty  had  styled  our  Government  at 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  327 

one  time  the  "  United  States  of  North  America,"  at 
another  the  "  North  American  Union,"  etc.  Lopez, 
in  his  bitterness  against  Americans  and  foreigners  in 
general,  made  the  amendments  of  the  Senate  a  pre- 
text for  refusing  to  ratify  the  treaty  in  its  new  form. 
He  had  ratified  it  once  and  that  was  enough.  The 
notes  of  Lieutenant  Page  were  returned  to  him  with- 
out an  answer,  except  that  the  President  did  not  read 
English  and  could  not  understand  them  without  an 
official  translation.  Page,  who  was  hot-headed,  lost 
his  temper,  and  insisted  on  writing  again  in  English. 
This  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  chose  to  con- 
sider as  an  insult,  and  Page  was  obliged  to  retire. 

Soon  after  this,  in  October,  1854,  a  decree  was  is- 
sued prohibiting  foreign  vessels  of  war  from  navigat- 
ing the  rivers  of  Paraguay — a  decree  which  especially 
aimed  at  the  explorations  of  the  Water  Witch.  Page 
therefore  continued  his  explorations  within  the  lim- 
its of  the  Argentine  Confederation ;  but  in  descending 
the  river  Parana,  which  was  common  to  the  two  coun- 
tries, he  got  aground,  and  subsequently,  in  passing 
closely  under  the  guns  of  a  Paraguayan  fort,  the  vessel 
was  fired  into  and  the  helmsman  was  killed.  This  was 
on  February  i,  1855.  Our  Government  at  first  took  no 
action  in  the  matter,  except  to  send  Mr.  Richard  Fitz- 
patrick  as  a  special  commissioner  to  exchange  the 
ratifications  of  the  treaty.  Mr.  Fitzpatrick  arrived  in 
November,  1856,  but  Paraguay  again  refused  to  ratify 


328  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

until  the  pending  questions  were  settled — not  only 
that  of  the  insult  which  Lopez  claimed  to  have  re- 
ceived from  Lieutenant  Page  of  the  Water  Witch,  but 
also  for  the  reclamations  which  had  been  made  on  the 
part  of  the  steamer  company  of  Mr.  Hopkins.  The 
matter  was  thereupon  brought  to  the  attention  of 
Congress,  and  on  June  2,  1858,  the  President  was 
authorized  to  take  such  action  as  he  deemed  neces- 
sary. A  commissioner  was  again  sent  to  Paraguay, 
and  a  considerable  naval  force — of  nineteen  vessels, 
carrying  two  hundred  guns  and  twenty-five  hundred 
men — was  despatched  to  the  river  La  Plata.  This 
show  of  force  had  its  effect.  Our  commissioner,  Mr. 
James  B.  Bowlin,  arrived  at  Asuncion  on  January  25, 
1859,  and  by  February  4th  succeeded  in  concluding 
two  treaties — one  for  the  settlement  of  claims,  and 
the  other  of  commerce  and  navigation,  being  an  al- 
most exact  copy  of  the  original  treaty  of  1853.  These 
treaties  were  afterward  duly  ratified  by  both  sides, 
and  the  question  was  finally  settled."^ 

*  The  history  of  this  episode  may  be  found  in  part  in  the 
book  of  Lieutenant  Page,  cited  above  ;  in  the  Annuaire  de  la 
Revue  des  deux  Mondes,  1853-59  ;  and  in  the  Messages  of 
President  Buchanan,  of  December  8,  1857,  and  December  19, 
1859,  with  the  accompanying  documents. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  329 


6\-THE  AMAZON. 

Our  Treaty  with  Peru  of  185 1. — Brazilian  Intrigues. — Mr. 
Randolph  Clay's  Negotiations. — Bolivian  Decree. — Peru- 
vian River  Ports  Opened. — Intrigues  at  Lima. — England 
and  France. — Mr.  Marcy's  Reply  to  the  Brazilian  Min- 
ister.— His  Instructions  to  Mr.  Trousdale. — President 
Pierce's  Message. — Peru  Changes  Face  and  Accepts  Bra- 
zilian Doctrines. — Abrogation  of  Treaty  with  Peru. — 
Treaty  with  Bolivia. — Trousdale  at  Rio  Janeiro. — Brazil- 
ian Decree  of  1866,  Opening  the  Amazon. — Peruvian  De- 
cree. 

On  July  26,  185 1,  Mr.  J.  Randolph  Clay,  our  min- 
ister at  Lima,  concluded  a  treaty  of  friendship,  com- 
merce and  navigation  between  the  United  States  and 
Peru,  which  was  duly  ratified  on  both  sides.  Three 
previous  treaties  of  a  similar  nature  had  been  con- 
cluded, and  had  been  approved  by  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  and  ratified  by  the  President,  but  had 
all  been  rejected  by  the  Peruvian  Congress.  By  this 
treaty  Peru  agreed  to  grant  to  no  other  nation  favors, 
privileges,  or  immunities  which  should  not  immedi- 
ately be  extended  to  citizens  of  the  United  States ; 
and  agreed  also  that  citizens  of  the  United  States  es- 
tablishing lines  of  steam-vessels  between  the  different 
ports  of  entry  within  the  Peruvian  territories  should 
have  all  the  privileges  and  favors  enjoyed  by  any 
other  association  or  company  whatever. 

Already,  before  the  treaty  had  been  made,  Lieuten- 


330  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ants  Herndon  and  Gibbon,  of  the  United  States  Navy, 
had  been  sent  to  Peru  with  instructions  to  explore 
the  Amazon  and  its  different  branches  to  the  mouth, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  its  navigability  and  its 
use  for  commerce.  As  soon  as  this  expedition  was 
known  at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  the  Chevalier  Da  Ponte 
Ribeyro  was  sent  to  Peru  and  Bolivia  in  order  to 
negotiate  treaties  for  the  navigation  of  the  Amazon, 
"  by  which  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  should  be 
excluded  from  all  participation  in  the  navigation  of 
the  Amazon  and  in  the  trade  of  the  interior  of  South 
America."  A  treaty  was  signed  between  Peru  and 
Brazil  on  October  23,  185 1  ;  and  it  was  agreed  by 
article  second  that  the  navigation  of  the  Amazon 
*' should  belong  exclusively  to  the  respective  states 
owning  its  banks."  It  was  agreed  also  that  if  a  Bra- 
zilian company  of  steam  navigation  were  started,  Peru 
would  assist  it  with  a  yearly  subsidy.  During  the 
negotiations  Mr.  Clay  had  conversations  with  Mr. 
Osma,  the  Peruvian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  who 
stated  that  the  treaty  was  only  one  of  limits,  and 
would  stipulate  nothing  for  navigation.  The  min- 
istry had  changed,  and  after  the  signature  of  the 
treaty  Mr.  Clay  complained  to  Mr.  Tirado,  the  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Affairs,  who  showed  a  willingness  to 
evade  the  actual  provisions  of  the  treaty,  and  pro- 
posed to  declare  several  Peruvian  towns — Nauta,  Lo- 
reto,  and  others  on  the  branches  of  the  Amazon,  as 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  33 1 

ports  of  entry — so  as  to  afford  the  United  States 
plausible  grounds  to  claim  the  navigation  of  the  Am- 
azon. Mr.  Clay  bestirred  himself  to  preserve  our 
rights,  and  as  we  had  no  representative  in  Bolivia, 
he  wrote  to  Lieutenant  Herndon,  who  was  still  there, 
and  succeeded  in  frustrating  the  designs  of  the  Bra- 
zilian minister,  who  had  been  empowered  also  to 
conclude  a  treaty  with  that  country.  Subsequently, 
on  January  27,  1853,  Bolivia  opened  freely  to  the 
navigation  of  all  the  world  the  rivers  and  navigable 
waters  flowing  through  Bolivian  territory,  and  emp- 
tying into  the  Paraguay  or  the  Amazon,  and  besides 
this,  ofTered  $10,000  for  the  first  steam-vessel  which 
should  arrive  from  the  sea  at  any  Bolivian  river  port. 
In  1852  the  Brazilian  government  gave  an  exclusive 
right  of  steam  navigation  on  the  Amazon  to  the  Bra- 
zilian Company  of  Souza.  Mr.  Clay  thereupon  called 
the  attention  of  the  Peruvian  government  to  this 
fact,  and  also  to  the  decree  of  Bolivia  opening  her 
rivers,  and  claimed  the  equal  rights  granted  by  our 
treaty.  He  endeavored  also  to  secure  action  by  the 
governments  of  Ecuador  and  New  Grenada.  The 
Peruvian  consul  at  Rio  de  Janeiro  had  made  an  agree- 
ment between  Peru  and  the  Souza  company,  just 
mentioned,  in  November,  1852,  and  this  was  finally 
approved  by  the  President  of  Peru,  with  the  omission 
of  certain  articles  which  were  considered  objection- 
able.    Shortly  after  that,  in  April,  1853,  in  all  prob- 


332  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ability  owing  to  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Clay,  the  towns  of 
I  /  Loreto  and  Nauta  were  made  ports  of  entry,  and  the 
privileges  given  to  Brazil  were  extended  to  all  the 
/  most  favored  nations.  Two  steamers  at  the  same 
time  were  ordered  by  the  Peruvian  government  from 
an  American,  to  be  delivered  at  Loreto.  Mr.  Caval- 
canti,  the  Brazilian  minister,  protested  against  this 
'  decree,  and  Mr.  Lisboa  was  sent  out  by  Brazil  to 
New  Grenada,  Ecuador,  and  Venezuela  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  treaties  to  close  the  Amazon  to  the 
United  States.  The  great  argument  used  was  that 
"  the  navigation  of  the  Amazon  belonged  of  right  ex- 
clusively to  the  nations  owning  its  banks,"  and  in 
isupport  of  this  it  was  constantly  brought  up,  "  that  if 
citizens  of  the  United  States  were  allowed  once  to 
establish  themselves,  either  for  purposes  of  trade  or 
abode,  in  the  interior  of  South  America,  they  would 
inevitably  introduce  their  own  institutions  and  re- 
nounce the  allegiance  of  their  adopted  country." 

There  was  an  idea  prevalent  throughout  South 
America  at  that  time  that  the  United  States  were 
bent  on  annexation.  Our  filibustering  expeditions  to 
Cuba  and  to  Central  America,  and  the  bombardment 
of  Greytown,  had  greatly  impressed  all  South  Amer- 
ica. It  was  thought  that  if  our  citizens  once  estab- 
lished themselves  there,  they  would  introduce  free 
principles,  insist  on  gov.erning  themselves,  and  finally 
declare  their  independence  and  their  annexation  to 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  333 

the  United  States.  Mr.  Clay  did  his  best,  by  private 
letters  and  by  personal  intercourse  with  the  ministers 
of  the  other  South  American  republics,  to  counteract 
the  efforts  of  Brazil,  and  was  in  a  measure  successful. 
He  persuaded  the  Peruvian  minister  to  send  a  circular 
letter  to  Brazil,  New  Grenada,  Ecuador,  and  Venezuela 
on  July  13,  1853,  inviting  them  to  treat  about  the 
opening  of  the  Amazon.  Bolivia  was  not  invited,  al- 
though it  had  an  equal  interest  with  the  others,  be- 
cause that  country  was  then  at  war  with  Peru.  In 
this  circular  Mr.  Tirado  said  : 

"  The  government  believes  that,  considering  the  ideas  of  the 
time,  the  exigencies  of  commerce,  and  of  the  diplomacy  of 
the  world,  as  well  as  the  necessity  of  not  impeding  the  evident 
destiny  of  these  territories  and  rivers,  the  most  thorough  ex- 
ploration of  them  and  the  adoption  of  a  commercial  policy 
which  shall  reconcile  the  interests  of  the  world  with  the  inter- 
ests and  rights  of  the  nations  in  possession,  are  matters  which 
these  last  cannot  defer." 

The  Peruvian  Congress  was  about  to  meet  at  that 
time,  and  Mr.  Cavalcanti,  the  Brazilian  minister,  tried 
hard  to  persuade  its  members  to  disapprove  of  the  de- 
cree of  April  15th.  He  even  published  a  pamphlet, 
expressed  in  violent  terms,  attributing  to  the  United 
States  views  of  annexation  as  the  reasons  for  which 
they  desired  to  have  the  Amazon  opened  to  them. 
Mr.  Clay  replied,  through  a  friend,  with  another 
pamphlet,  and  then  published  a  Spanish  translation, 
with    additions    and    notes,  of   Lieutenant    Maury's 


334  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

pamphlet  on  the  Amazon  and  the  Atlantic  slope  of 
South  America,  which  was  circulated  not  only  through 
Peru,  but  also  through  the  other  republics  of  the 
Pacific  coast.  This  had  a  very  good  effect,  and  the 
Peruvian  Congress  appropriated  over  half  a  million 
dollars  to  carry  out  the  decree  of  April  15th  opening 
the  rivers,  as  well  as  to  pay  the  Brazilian  Company  the 
$20,000  arranged  by  the  treaty  of  185 1,  without  taking 
any  actual  vote  on  the  decree  itself.  The  first  Brazil- 
ian steamer  of  the  Souza  Company  arrived  at  the  port 
of  Loreto  on  October  6,  1853,  and  went  further  up  to 
Nauta.  Its  captain  had  the  order  to  hoist  the  Peru- 
vian flag  on  reaching  the  Peruvian  boundary,  so  as  to 
afford  no  pretext  to  other  nations. 

The  representatives  of  England  and  France  were 
ordered  to  follow  in  the  wake  of  the  United  States, 
and  Mr.  Sulivan,  the  British  charge  d'affaires,  on  Oc- 
tober 25,  1853,  demanded  the  same  rights  on  the 
Amazon  as  might  be  granted  to  the  United  States, 
Brazil,  or  others,  under  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain 
of  April  10,  1850.  Restated  at  the  same  time  that 
"  the  British  minister  at  Rio  de  Janeiro  had  been  in- 
structed to  impress  upon  the  Brazilian  government  the 
good  policy  of  doing  away  with  all  restrictions  and 
getting  rid  of  all  monopolies  affecting  the  commerce 
of  that  river."  There  was,  however,  a  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  both  England  and  France.  England  did  not 
wish  to  claim  separately  the  navigation  of  the  Ama- 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  335 

zon,  lest  it  might  be  considered  by  the  United  States 
as  a  precedent  with  regard  to  the  St.  Lawrence,  and 
France  was  bound  by  the  tenth,  eleventh,  and  twelfth 
articles  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  by  which  she  had  re- 
nounced all  rights  to  the  navigation  of  the  Amazon, 
and  by  which  she  had  even  agreed  that  the  inhabit- 
ants of  Cayenne  should  be  prevented  from  carrying 
on  commerce  in  the  Marawon,  and  the  mouths  of  the 
Amazon.  ^ 

Mr.  Lisboa,  the  Brazilian  envoy,  had  succeeded  in 
concluding  a  treaty  with  New  Grenada,  similar  to 
that  with  Peru,  and  it  became  Mr.  Clay's  duty  to  do 
what  he  could  to  prevent  it  from  being  ratified.  In 
Ecuador  he  had  more  success,  as  letters  and  pamph- 
lets had  produced  an  impression,  and  on  November 
26,  1853,  that  government  declared  the  freedom  to  all 
nations  of  the  navigation  of  the  Amazon  and  of  its 
branches  within  the  territory  of  Ecuador. 

Meanwhile  Brazil  was  very  uneasy.  On  April  4, 
1853,  Mr.  Carvalho  Moreira,  the  Brazilian  minister 
at  Washington,  made  inquiry  of  Mr.  Marcy  about 
rumored  expeditions  of  naval  and  commercial  ships 
to  the  Amazon,  enclosing  newspaper  paragraphs  on 
the  subject.  Mr.  Marcy,  in  his  reply  of  April  20th, 
seemed  to  think  that  the  minister's  apprehensions  had 
arisen  from  accounts  of  the  recent  scientific  expedi- 
tion on  the  Amazon,  which  he  explained,  and  ex- 
plained also  that  Lieutenants  Herndon  and  Gibbon 


3 3^  AMERICAN  DIPL OMA  C V. 

had  gone  with  passports,  and  under  the  authority- 
granted  by  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Macedo.  In  August 
the  Brazilian  minister  made  further  inquiries,  and 
enclosed  a  newspaper  paragraph,  saying  that  Lieuten- 
ant Porter  of  the  navy  had  received  two  years'  leave 
of  absence,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  charge  of  an  ex- 
pedition intending  to  force  a  passage  of  the  mouths 
of  the  Amazon.  Mr.  Marcy,  in  writing  on  Septem- 
ber 22,  1853,  again  denied  any  purpose  of  using  force, 
and  showed,  by  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  that  Lieutenant  Porter  had  not  received  any 
leave  of  absence.  Admitting  at  the  same  time  that 
citizens  of  the  United  States  must  have  seen  the  great 
advantages  which  the  navigation  of  the  Amazon 
would  bring  them,  he  added  that  he 

*'  Permitted  himself  to  entertain  the  hope  that  the  Brazilian 
government,  actuated  by  an  enlightened  regard  for  the  in- 
terests of  the  empire,  will  strive  by  all  proper  means  to  de- 
velop its  vast  resources.  It  appears  to  the  undersigned  that 
no  means  would  be  more  certain  to  lead  to  this  result  than  the 
removal  of  unnecessary  restrictions  upon  the  navigation  of  the 
Amazon,  and  especially  to  the  passage  of  vessels  of  the  United 
States  to  and  from  the  territories  of  Bolivia  and  Peru,  by  the 
way  of  that  river  and  its  tributaries.  It  is  hoped  that  by 
means  of  treaty  stipulations  those  advantages  may  be  ob- 
tained for  citizens  of  the  United  States." 

Mr.  Moreira  was  still  suspicious,  and  at  the  end 
of  November  sent  more  newspaper  paragraphs  and 
wished   more   exact   instructions  to  be  given  to  the 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  33/ 

Collector  of  New  York  to  prevent  the  fitting  out  of 
any  filibustering  expeditions.  This  Mr.  Marcy  con- 
sented to. 

In  the  instructions  which  had  been  given  to  Mr. 
Trousdale,  who  had  succeeded  Mr.  Schenck  as  min- 
ister at  Rio  de  Janeiro,  dated  August  8,  1853,  he 
was  ordered  to  claim  the  right  of  passage,  for  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  through  the  Amazon,  for  legiti- 
mate commerce  with  the  republics  of  Bolivia,  Peru, 
Ecuador,  New  Grenada,  and  Venezuela.  Mr.  Marcy 
used  almost  a  threat,  for  he  said  : 

**  Should  you  discover  any  reluctance  on  the  part  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  Brazil  to  yield  to  this  just  claim,  you  will  impress 
upon  it  the  determination  of  the  United  States  to  secure  it  for 
their  citizens.  The  President  is  desirous  to  cultivate  the  most 
amicable  relations  with  that  government,  and  would  much 
regret  to  have  these  relations  disturbed  by  its  persistence  in  a 
policy  so  much  at  variance  with  all  the  liberal  views  of  civil- 
ized and  enterprising  nations." 

An  argument  was  then  drawn  from  natural  rights, 
and  especially  from  the  action  of  the  Congress  of 
Vienna  in  1815. 

So  earnest  was  our  Government  on  this  subject  that 
President  Pierce,  in  his  annual  message  of  December 
5,  1853,  said: 

**  Considering  the  vast  regions  of  this  continent,  and  the 
number  of  states  which  would  be  made  accessible  by  the  free 
navigation  of  the  river  Amazon,  particular  attention  has  been 
given  to  this  subject.     Brazil,  through  whose  territories  it  passes 


338  AMERICAN  DirLOMACV. 

into  the  ocean,  has  hitherto  persisted  in  a  policy  so  restrictive, 
in  regard  to  the  use  of  this  river,  as  to  obstruct  and  nearly  ex- 
clude foreign  commercial  intercourse  with  the  states  which  lie 
upon  its  tributaries  and  upper  branches.  Our  minister  to  that 
country  is  instructed  to  obtain  a  relaxation  of  that  policy,  and 
to  use  his  efforts  to  induce  the  Brazilian  government  to  open 
to  common  use,  under  proper  safeguards,  this  great  natural 
highway  for  international  trade.  Several  of  the  South  Amer- 
ican states  are  deeply  interested  in  this  attempt  to  secure  the 
free  navigation  of  the  Amazon,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  expect 
their  co-operation  in  the  measure.  As  the  advantages  of  free 
commercial  intercourse  among  nations  are  better  understood, 
more  liberal  views  are  generally  entertained  as  to  the  common 
rights  of  all  to  the  free  use  of  those  means  which  nature  has 
provided  for  international  communication.  To  these  more 
liberal  and  enlightened  views  it  is  hoped  that  Brazil  will  con- 
form her  policy,  and  remove  all  unnecessary  restrictions  upon 
the  free  use  of  a  river  which  traverses  so  many  states  and  so 
large  a  part  of  the  continent." 

To  return  to  Peru,  we  find  that  in  January  Mr. 
Paz-Soldan,  the  new  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
whose  appointment  was  considered  almost  an  act  of 
hostility  to  the  United  States,  had  begun  to  waver 
on  the  Amazon  question ;  for  the  Brazilian  minister 
had  declared  that,  if  the  decree  of  April  15th  were  en- 
forced in  its  entirety,  the  treaty  with  Brazil  would  be 
annulled.  He  had  also  informed  the  Peruvian  gov- 
ernment that  the  Brazilian  minister  at  Washington 
had  written  to  him  that  Mr.  Marcy  fully  sympathized 
with  Brazil  in  this  matter,  and  was  ready  to  disavow 
Mr.  Clay — a  statement  which  our  minister  was  able  to 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  339 

denounce  at  once  as  a  falsehood.  It  having  been  al- 
lowed to  the  Brazilian  steamers  to  proceed  further 
than  Nauta  up  the  river  Huallaga,  Mr.  Clay,  on  De- 
cember 31,  1853,  had  asked  if  this  were  true,  as  he 
should  then  claim  the  same  rights  for  the  United 
States.  Mr.  Paz-Soldan  replied  on  January  18,  1854, 
and  used  specious  arguments  to  prove  that  the  conces- 
sions granted  to  Brazil  could  not  be  claimed  by  the 
United  States,  as  their  treaty  referred  only  to  coast 
and  not  to  river  navigation,  and  as  the  United  States 
nowhere  possessed  any  part  of  the  banks  of  the  Ama- 
zon, they  could  not  offer  the  same  equivalent  as  Brazil 
did.  This  was  accompanied  by  the  decree  of  January 
4,  1854,  amending  the  decree  of  April  15th,  and  giv- 
ing rights  on  the  Amazon  to  Brazilian  subjects  only, 
but  stating  that 

"  If  other  states  pretend  that  their  subjects  and  vessels  should 
be  admitted  to  the  Amazon  and  its  confluents  belonging  to  the 
territory  of  Peru,  because  they  believe  they  have  the  right  to  it 
by  virtue  of  treaties  concluded  with  the  republic,  the  govern- 
ment will  proceed  to  grant  or  deny  the  demands  addressed  to 
it,  according  to  the  stipulations  of  existing  treaties,  or  in  the 
manner  and  under  the  conditions  which  may  be  deemed  most 
fit  and  convenient." 

In  explaining  this  decree,  he  said  that  the  decree  of 
April  15th  had  been  only  administrative,  and  did  not 
bind  Peru  to  foreign  nations  except  so  far  as  conform- 
able to  treaties.     Mr.  Clay,  in  his  replies  of  February 


340  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

4th  and  February  i6th  declined  any  controversy,  as 
our  rights  were  abundantly  fixed  by  treaties,  by  the 
decree  of  April  15th,  and  by  his  various  conversations 
with  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  protested 
energetically  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  in  case 
it  was  intended  to  deprive  our  citizens  of  any  rights. 
In  reporting  his  proceedings  to  his  Government,  Mr. 
Clay  thought  that  the  United  States  should  use  a 
tone  of  decision  and  energetic  remonstrance  if  they 
wished  to  maintain  their  rights.  Various  other  things 
had  occurred  at  this  time,  at  the  Chincha  Islands  and 
elsewhere,  which  were  contrary  to  the  treaty,  and 
doubtless  a  show  of  force  would  have  brought  Peru  to 
reason.  Matters,  however,  remained  in  this  state 
until  July,  1856,  when,  at  a  new  session  of  the  Peru- 
vian Congress,  Mr.  Clay  persuaded  several  of  the 
deputies  to  introduce  a  bill  providing  for  the  freedom 
of  coasts  and  rivers.  Owing  partly  to  the  apathy  of 
the  overworked  Congress  and  partly  through  the  in- 
opportune arrival  of  Mr.  Lisboa  as  Brazilian  minister 
(the  same  who  had  made  a  tour  three  years  before  in- 
citing the  Pacific  republics  against  the  United  States), 
this  bill  did  not  pass,  and  matters  remained  in  that 
state  until  1862,  when  Peru  gave  notice  that  the 
treaty  of  185 1  should  terminate.  This  treaty,  there- 
fore, came  to  an  end  on  December  9,  1863,  and  we 
had  no  treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation  with  Peru 
until  1870. 


FREE   NAVIGAl^ION  OF  RIVERS.  34 1 

In  1858,  however,  the  United  States  concluded  a 
treaty  with  Bolivia  which  confirmed  to  us  the  rights 
of  navigation  previously  granted  by  a  decree,  and 
article  twenty-six  said : 

''In  accordance  with  fixed  principles  of  international  law, 
Bolivia  regards  the  rivers  Amazon  and  La  Plata,  with  their 
tributaries,  as  highways  or  channels  opened  by  nature  for  the 
commerce  of  all  nations.  In  virtue  of  which,  and  desirous  of 
promoting  an  interchange  of  productions  through  these  chan- 
nels, she  will  permit,  and  invites,  commercial  vessels  of  all 
descriptions  of  the  United  States,  and  of  all  other  nations  of 
the  world,  to  navigate  freely  in  any  part  of  their  courses  which 
pertain  to  her,  ascending  those  rivers  to  Bolivian  ports,  and 
descending  therefrom  to  the  ocean." 

If  we  had  had  everywhere  in  South  America  min- 
isters as  competent  and  energetic  as  Mr.  Clay  and 
Mr.  Schenck,  we  should  probably  have  acquired  a 
commercial  influence  on  that  continent,  at  a  time 
when  we  had  a  large  commercial  marine,  before  the 
war,  so  great  that  it  would  still  remain  to  us.  Un- 
fortunately Mr.  Schenck's  successor  at  Rio  de  Jan- 
eiro, Mr.  Trousdale,  a  very  estimable  man,  who  had 
been  governor  of  Tennessee,  was  old  and  crippled  with 
rheumatism,  and  was  by  disposition  totally  unfitted 
for  diplomatic  work.  His  manner  of  living  and  his 
ignorance  of  the  usages  of  the  world  made  him  unfit 
for  society,  and  he  never  succeeded  in  making  those 
social  relations  which  increase  the  influence  of  a  min- 
ister in  a  large  country.     In  accordance  with  his  in- 


342  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

structions,  Mr.  Trousdale  represented  to  Brazil  the 
desire  of  the  United  States  for  the  opening  of  the 
Amazon ;  but  he  was  put  off  from  time  to  time,  and 
finally,  after  ten  months,  the  Brazilian  minister  replied 
that  he  could  not  consent  to  the  doctrine  proposed  by 
the  United  States;  "it  could  not  prevail  unless  it 
were  for  substituting  the  principles  of  interest  and 
force  for  those  of  right  and  justice."  He  main- 
tained that  the  principles  of  the  treaty  of  Vienna 
did  not  apply,  and  had  not  been  recognized  even  by 
all  of  Europe,  and  that  England  and  France,  by  their 
treaties  of  1849,  had  even  admitted  the  navigation 
of  the  river  Parana  to  be  interior  and  not  interna- 
tional. Subsequent  treaties  on  that  subject  he  took 
no  notice  of.  He  said  that  the  Amazon  valley  was  a 
desert  in  Brazil,  and  in  other  countries  it  was  still  less 
populated ;  that  no  advantages  could  result  to  the 
United  States  or  other  country  by  opening  the  river. 
He  added :  "  It  is  not  the  intention  of  the  imperial 
government  to  keep  the  Amazon  forever  closed  to 
foreign  transit  and  foreign  commerce.  Its  opening, 
however,  does  not  seem  to  it  to  be  as  yet  called 
for." 

Notwithstanding  this  reply  Mr.  Trousdale  proposed 
a  commercial  treaty  with  the  Brazilian  government 
in  December,  1854.  To  this  proposition  he  received 
an  answer  only  in  December,  1855.  The  proposal  was 
politely  declined,  the  minister  saying  that  he  supposed 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  343 

the  chief  object  of  it  was  to  open  the  Amazon.  As 
to  that,  Brazil  preferred  to  open  the  Amazon  volun- 
tarily to  doing  so  by  treaty  with  any  one  nation  ;  that 
the  absence  of  treaties  for  the  northern  and  western 
boundaries  of  Brazil  made  a  delay  necessary.  Matters 
remained  in  this  condition  until  1866.  Our  war  and 
the  cessation  of  our  treaty  with  Peru  had  prevented 
us  from  pressing  the  subject.  On  December  7,  1866, 
the  Emperor  of  Brazil  issued  a  decree  which  opened 
the  Amazon,  together  with  its  tributaries  the  San| 
Francisco  and  the  Tocantins,  to  the  commerce  of  all 
the  world  from  and  after  September  7,  1867.  Its 
tributaries — the  Topajos,  the  Madeira,  and  Rio  Negro 
— were  also  opened,  but  not  through  the  upper  part 
of  their  course,  where  only  one  bank  belonged  to  the 
Brazilian  empire. 

But  at  this  time  our  foreign  commerce  and  our 
carrying  trade  had  been  ruined  by  the  war  and  our 
absurd  shipping  laws,  and  the  decree  announcing  the 
opening  of  the  Amazon,  in  which  Mr.  Marcy  and  Mr. 
Randolph  Clay  were  so  deeply  interested,  was  ap- 
parently received  by  Mr.  Seward  with  as  little  emo- 
tion as  if  it  had  notified  him  of  the  dissolution  of 
Parliament,  or  some  other  object  of  purely  Brazilian 
concern. 

Peru  again  followed  the  example  of  Brazil,  and  on 
December  17,  1868,  President  Jose  Balta  decreed 
that  "  the  navigation  of  all  the  rivers  of  the  Republic 


344  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

is  open  to  merchant  vessels,  whatever  be  their  nation- 
ality." ^ 

*  Collection  of  Peruvian  Treaties,  Lima,  1876,  p.  115.  The 
facts  in  the  above  sketch  have  been  taken  from  the  original 
manuscript  despatches  in  the  State  Department.  The  papers 
on  this  subject  have  never  been  officially  published,  but  ex- 
tracts are  given  by  Mr.  Lawrence  in  his  notes  to  Wheaton, 
edition  of  1863,  pp.  363-365.  The  notes  between  Mr.  Clay 
and  the  Peruvian  ministers  are  printed  in  the  collection  of 
Oviedo,  vii.,  pp.  108-134. 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  345 


^.-EUROPEAN  RIVERS. 

The  Scheldt. — French  Efforts  for  Free  Navigation. — Treaties 
of  Paris  and  Vienna. — The  Rhine. — The  Scheldt. — The 
Elbe. — The  Danube. — Congress  of  Paris. — Riparian  Com- 
mission.— The  European  Commission. — Treaties  of  1871 
and  1878. — Proposed  Mixed  Commission. — Roumanian 
Objections. — The  Barrere  Proposal. — Course  of  Russia. 
— Conference  of  London  of  1883. — Results. 

It  is  necessary  to  state  in  a  few  words  the  course 
which  the  question  of  free  navigation  has  taken  in 
Europe.  The  first  dispute  on  this  subject  related 
to  the  Scheldt.  By  the  treaties  of  Westphalia,  by 
which  the  United  Provinces  of  the  Netherlands  were 
declared  independent,  the  mouths  of  the  Scheldt 
were  closed  on  the  frontier  between  Holland  and  the 
Catholic  provinces,  although  the  commerce  of  these 
provinces,  now  Belgium,  naturally  went  through 
them.  After  the  Spanish  provinces  were  ceded  to 
Austria  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  (17 13),  they  were 
submitted  to  a  military  servitude  in  favor  of  the 
United  Provinces.  The  Barrier  treaty,  signed  be- 
tween Austria,  Great  Britain,  and  Holland,  Novem- 
ber 15,  17 1 5,  even  stipulated  that  several  cities  should 
receive  a  Dutch  garrison.  In  1773,  Joseph  II.  de- 
clared the  Barrier  treaty  to  be  no  longer  necessary, 
and  in  1784,  with  the  idea  of  disembarrassing  Bel- 
gium of  commercial  dependence  on  Holland,  brought 


346  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

up  some  old  claims  against  that  country.  These 
claims  were  denied  by  the  States-General,  and  the 
Emperor,  who  could  not  see  one  of  the  finest  rivers  of 
the  world  shut  to  commerce,  and  his  subjects  de- 
prived by  policy  of  the  advantages  that  nature  had 
given  them,  declared  that  he  would  abandon  all  his 
claims  if  the  United  Provinces  would  consent  to  the 
navigation  of  the  Scheldt  by  his  subjects.  The  in- 
tervention of  Great  Britain  and  France  was  then 
asked  for,  and  by  the  the  treaty  of  Fontainebleau, 
November  8,  1785,  the  treaties  of  Westphalia  were 
confirmed,  the  Barrier  treaty  annulled,  but  the  Scheldt 
continued  to  be  closed  for  the  Belgic  provinces  from 
Saftingen  to  the  sea. 

Very  soon  after  this  came  the  French  Revolution, 
and  the  Republic  overturned  everything  in  its  power, 
as  far  as  possible,  that  it  considered  contrary  to  its 
interests.  By  a  decree  of  the  Executive  Council, 
November  20,  1792,  it  opened  the  navigation  of  the 
Scheldt  and  the  Meuse,  and  proclaimed  the  principle 
that  one  nation  cannot  without  injustice  claim  the 
right  of  occupying  exclusively  the  channel  of  a  river, 
and  of  preventing  neighboring  peoples  who  live  on 
its  upper  banks  from  enjoying  the  same  advantage. 
On  May  16,  1795,  a  treaty  between  the  French  and 
Batavian  governments  declared  the  navigation  of  the 
Rhine,  the  Meuse,  the  Scheldt,  and  the  Hondt,  and 
all  their  branches  to  the  sea,  to  be  free  to  the  two  na- 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  34/ 

tions,  the  French  and  the  Batavian.  At  the  Con- 
gress of  Rastadt,  in  1798,  France  demanded  not  only 
the  free  navigation  of  the  Rhine  but  of  its  branches, 
and  expressed  the  hope  of  seeing  these  principles 
adopted  on  all  the  great  German  rivers,  and  especially 
on  the  Danube,  on  account  of  the  immense  benefit 
which  results  from  free  navigation.  It  was,  however, 
by  the  treaty  of  Luneville,  February  9,  1801,  that  the 
French  demands  were  granted.  A  convention  be- 
tween Germany  and  France,  for  the  tolls  on  the  navi- 
gation of  the  Rhine,  was  signed  on  August  15,  1804. 
Similar  principles  were  afterward  adopted  for  the 
Vistula,  the  Elbe,  and  other  rivers. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  principle  of  free 
navigation  was  one  contended  for  by  the  French 
Republic,  yet  the  five  great  powers,  in  the  treaty  of 
Paris  of  May  30,  18 14,  inserted  an  article  on  this 
subject : 

"  The  navigation  of  the  Rhine,  from  the  point  where  it  be- 
comes navigable  to  the  sea,  and  reciprocally,  shall  be  free  in 
such  a  way  that  it  cannot  be  forbidden  to  anybody  ;  and  the 
future  Congress  shall  consider  the  principles  according  to 
which  the  duties  levied  by  the  riparian  states  can  be  regulated 
in  a  manner  most  equal  and  most  favorable  to  the  commerce 
of  all  nations." 

It  was  agreed,  also,  that  the  Congress  should  con- 
sider how  the  same  dispositions  could  be  extended  to 
all  other  rivers  which  in  their  navigable  course  sepa- 
rate or  traverse  different  states. 


348  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

The  Congress  of  Vienna  did  not,  however,  realize 
the  project  of  perfect  freedom  of  navigation  which  had 
been  entrusted  to  it.  A  commission  was  constituted 
to  draw  up  a  plan,  composed  chiefly  of  the  delegates 
of  the  riparian  states,  though  Lord  Clancarty  sat  as 
English  delegate,  showing  that  the  commission  had 
an  international  footing.  The  French  project,  which 
was  the  basis  of  discussion,  was  very  simple,  saying, 
"  the  Rhine  shall  be  considered  as  a  river  common  to 
the  riparian  states,  and  its  navigation  shall  be  entirely 
free  and  cannot  be  forbidden  to  anybody."  Lord 
Clancarty  proposed  some  slight  changes,  accentuating 
the  fact  of  the  freedom  of  the  Rhine  to  everybody ; 
but  Baron  William  Humboldt,  on  the  part  of  Prussia, 
proposed,  two  weeks  later,  another  draft  which  read : 
"  The  navigation  of  the  Rhine  shall  be  entirely  free, 
and  cannot,  in  regard  to  commerce,  be  forbidden  to 
anybody."  These  words  "  in  regard  to  commerce " 
seemed  somewhat  suspicious  to  Lord  Clancarty,  but 
he  was  outvoted,  and  the  commission  held,  quite 
contrary  to  the  original  project,  that  the  Congress  of 
1 8 14  had  only  intended  to  throw  open  the  Rhine  to 
the  riparian  states,  and  not  to  all  nations  who  had 
nothing  to  offer  in  return.  This  was  bad  :  but  worse 
was  to  follow.  Humboldt's  draft,  as  accepted  by  the 
Congress  of  Vienna,  read,  "  that  the  navigation  of  the 
Rhine  was  free  to  the  sea."  Holland  claimed  that 
"  to  the  sea  "  did  not  mean  "  into  the  sea,"  and  that 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  349 

therefore  at  the  highest  limit  of  tide-water  she  could 
place  barriers  and  tolls.  This  question  had  to  be 
taken  up  by  the  Congress  at  Verona,  in  1822,  and  the 
five  powers  signed  a  protocol  by  which  they  declared 
that  they  were  authorized  "  to  concur  in  the  exe- 
cution of  the  dispositions  of  the  act  of  the  Congress 
of  Vienna  relating  to  the  navigation  of  the  Rhine." 
Holland  still  delayed  conforming  to  them,  and  on 
February  14,  1826,  Prince  Metternich  was  obliged  to 
say  in  a  note  "  that  the  freedom  of  the  navigation  of 
the  Rhine  into  the  sea  is  an  express  condition  of  the 
existence  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Netherlands,  and  that 
the  international  law  of  Europe  demands  his  Majesty 
the  King  to  subordinate  his  sovereignty  to  the  con- 
ditions established  by  the  treaties."  It  was  not,  how- 
ever, until  1 83 1  that  the  Convention  for  the  Regula- 
tion and  Navigation  of  the  Rhine  was  signed,  by 
which,  in  spite  of  the  general  principles  of  the  treaty 
of  1 8 14,  the  navigation  of  the  Rhine  can  only  be 
exercised  by  known  subjects  of  the  riparian  states. 
Even  the  navigation  from  the  sea  and  to  the  sea  is 
reserved  to  those,  to  the  exclusion  of  non-riparian 
states. 

The  question  of  the  navigation  of  the  Scheldt  was 
never  entirely  arranged  until  the  treaty  of  1839,  and 
the  separation  of  the  respective  territories  of  Belgium 
and  the  Netherlands.  This  convention  still  allowed 
the   existence,  for   the   profit   of   Holland,  of  certain 


350  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

taxes  or  tolls  on  navigation.  These,  however,  were 
abolished  by  the  treaty  concluded  May  12,  1863,  be- 
tween Belgium  and  Holland,  by  which,  for  the  sum  of 
17,140,640  florins,  Holland  renounced  all  rights  of  toll 
on  the  river.  By  the  protocol  of  July  15,  1863,  Bel- 
gium arranged  with  the  European  powers  that  each 
should  pay  its  share  of  this  sum ;  and  the  United 
States,  by  a  separate  convention  of  May  20,  1 863,  and 
a  treaty  of  July  20,  1863,  agreed  to  pay  its  proportion, 
which  was  2,779,200  francs,  in  ten  annual  instalments, 
with  interest  at  four  per  cent.  This  sum  was  finally 
paid  in  1873,  having  amounted  in  all  to  $606,202.67. 

In  the  treaty  signed  at  Vienna  between  Prussia  and 
Saxony,  May  18,  181 5,  it  was  stipulated  that  the  gen- 
eral principles  stated  by  the  Congress  should  be  ap- 
plied to  the  Elbe  as  soon  as  possible.  Plenipotentia- 
ries were  appointed  by  the  ten  riparian  states,  but  it 
was  only  in  June,  1821,  that  an  act  of  navigation  was 
signed  which  gave  the  rights  of  navigation  only  to 
the  riparian  states.  Owing  in  great  measure  to  the 
free  city  of  Hamburg,  assisted  by  both  Hanover  and 
Mecklenburg,  an  additional  act,  in  the  year  1844, 
granted  greater  freedom  in  allowing  the  ships  of  all 
nations  to  transport  persons  and  merchandise  from 
the  North  Sea  to  the  ports  of  the  Elbe,  and  vice  versa, 
the  internal  navigation  being  still  reserved  for  the 
riparian  States. 

Another  question  arose  with  regard  to  the  Elbe — 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  35 1 

that  of  the  tolls  at  Stade,  which  were  levied  by  the 
government  of  Hanover  on  all  ships  descending  or  as- 
cending the  river.  The  Hanoverian  government  was 
deaf  to  all  appeals,  claiming  that  the  tolls  at  Stade 
were  sea  tolls  and  not  river  tolls.  Finally,  England 
refused  to  renew  its  treaty  of  1844  on  that  subject, 
Holland  and  Belgium  followed  its  example,  and  the 
United  States  had  always  refused  to  recognize  the 
right  of  Hanover  to  impose  these  duties.  We  had 
succeeded  by  our  treaty  of  1846  in  obtaining  that  no 
higher  or  other  toll  should  be  levied  at  Brunshausen 
or  Stade,  on  the  Elbe,  on  the  tonnage  of  cargoes  of 
vessels  of  the  United  States,  and  no  other  charges  or 
inconveniences  other,  than  were  levied  on  the  vessels 
of  Hanover.  In  1861  the  question  returned,  and,  by 
the  treaty  of  June  26th,  most  maritime  states  agreed  to 
pay  an  indemnity  to  Hanover  of  2,85  7,338  J^  thalers,  in 
consideration  of  the  total  abolition  of  the  Stade  dues. 
We  agreed  by  our  treaty  of  November  6,  1 861,  to  pay 
our  quota,  amounting  to  60,353  thalers,  on  considera- 
tion that  the  dues  should  be  abolished  forever ;  that 
no  charge  of  any  kind  should  be  imposed  in  compen- 
sation thereof  ;  and  that  the  works  necessary  for  the 
free  navigation  of  the  Elbe  should  be  maintained  as. 
before  by  the  government  of  Hanover. 

The  treaty  of  July  3,  1849,  for  the  navigation  of 
the  Po  was  far  more  liberal  than  any  preceding  trea- 
ties, in  allowing  navigation  to  be  free  to  all  nations. 


352  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

That  question  has,  however,  been  put  entirely  aside 
by  all  the  banks  of  the  Po  being  now  absorbed  into 
the  kingdom  of  Italy. 

However  little  these  various  conventions  for  the 
free  navigation  of  rivers  conformed  to  the  ideas  of  the 
treaty  of  1814,  yet  one  thing  was  gained — that  a  river 
flowing  along  or  through  two  or  more  states  was 
looked  upon  as  being  the  common  property  of  them, 
over  which  no  one  had  a  right  to  exercise  authority 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  others. 

It  has  often  been  claimed  as  one  of  the  merits  of 
the  Congress  of  Paris  of  1856,  that  it  extended  the 
principle  of  the  free  navigation  of  rivers  to  the 
Danube.  The  freedom  there  proclaimed  has  been 
restricted  in  ways  which  are  interesting  to  study. 
Here  the  principle,  which  we  proclaimed  a  century 
ago,  that  states  lying  on  the  upper  course  of  a  river 
had  a  right  to  navigate  the  lower  course,  is  so 
stretched  as  to  imply  that  such  states  have  a  right  to 
control  the  navigation. 

The  freedom  of  navigation  on  the  Danube  had 
been  recognized  by  Austria  and  Turkey  by  the  treaty 
of  Passarowitz  in  1784.  Russia  in  1812  gained  a  foot- 
ing on  the  river,  which  was  increased  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  at  last  she  had  in  her  possession  all  the 
mouths  of  the  Danube  ;  and  although  by  the  treaty 
with  Austria  in  1840  it  had  been  agreed  not  to  impose 
tolls  on  navigation,  there  were  vexations  from  qua- 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  353 

rantines  which  amounted  to  about  the  same  thing. 
An  English  vessel  in  1853  was  obliged  to  remain 
sixty-five  days  at  Galatz ;  and  although  Odessa  and 
Galatz  were  at  about  the  same  distance  from  Con- 
stantinople, the  freight  to  Galatz  was  twenty-two 
francs  higher  than  to  Odessa.  England  and  Austria 
protested  against  this  state  of  things,  for  the  mouths 
of  the  Danube  had  been  allowed  to  fill  up  ;  but  they 
were  unable  to  do  anything  until  1854,  when,  on  the 
outbreak  of  the  Crimean  War,  the  re-establishment 
of  free  navigation  was  recognized  as  indispensable. 
This  question  was  always  brought  up  at  the  various 
negotiations  for  peace;  and  finally,  in  1856  it  was 
agreed,  by  Articles  15  to  19  of  the  treaty  of  Paris,  to 
apply  the  principles  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna  to  the 
Danube  and  its  mouths  ;  and  it  was  declared  "  that 
this  arrangement  henceforth  forms  a  part  of  the  public 
law  of  Europe,  and  is  taken  under  its  guaranty."  No 
toll  was  to  be  founded  solely  on  the  navigation  of 
the  river,  nor  any  duty  placed  on  the  goods  which 
may  be  on  board  the  vessels.  Regulations  of  police 
and  quarantine  were  to  be  arranged  so  as  to  facilitate 
the  passage  of  vessels.  With  the  exception  of  such 
regulations,  no  obstacle  whatever  shall  be  opposed  to 
their  navigation.  A  European  Commission,  in  which 
the  signatory  powers  were  to  be  represented  each  by 
one  delegate,  was  to  be  charged  with  executing  the 
necessary  works  for  clearing  the  mouths  of  the 
23 


354  AMERICAN-  DIPLOMACY, 

Danube.  A  Riparian  Commission,  which  was  in- 
tended to  be  permanent,  was  to  prepare  the  regula- 
tions for  navigation  and  river  police,  to  remove  the 
impediments,  of  whatever  nature  they  might  be,  still 
preventing  the  application  to  the  Danube  of  the  ar- 
rangements of  Vienna,  to  execute  necessary  works 
throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  river,  and,  after 
the  dissolution  of  the  European  Commission,  to 
maintain  the  mouth  of  the  Danube  and  the  neighbor- 
ing parts  of  the  sea  in  a  navigable  state. 

The  difificulties  after  this  came  not  from  Russia, 
but  from  Austria,  which  had,  during  the  whole  course 
of  the  deliberations,  attempted  to  restrict  the  free 
navigation  of  the  river  to  the  riparian  states  solely. 
Under  the  guidance  of  Austria  regulations  were  drawn 
up  by  the  Riparian  Commission,  which  were  presented 
to  the  conference  of  Paris  in  1858,  with  the  claim  that 
all  that  the  conference  had  a  right  to  exact  was  to 
acknowledge  their  receipt,  upon  which  they  would 
immediately  be  put  into  vigor.  These  regulations, 
however,  had  been  drawn  up  in  a  manner  entirely 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  treaty  of  Paris,  with  the 
intention  of  reserving,  as  far  as  possible,  all  rights  on 
the  river  to  the  riparian  states,  and  especially  to  the 
Austrian  steamer  companies,  which  had  a  monopoly  of 
the  navigation,  and  in  which  various  high  personages 
in  Austria  were  said  to  be  interested.  An  attempt 
was  made  to  introduce  a  distinction  between  internal 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  355 

navigation  from  port  to  port,  and  the  navigation  be- 
tween any  part  of  the  river  and  the  sea,  the  latter 
only  being  free  to  all  nations.  The  articles  on  agents, 
licenses,  etc.,  were  all  drawn  up  so  as  to  maintain  the 
monopoly  of  the  riparian  states.  The  transit  of  any 
article  prohibited  by  the  tariff  of  any  country  was  for- 
bidden contrary  to  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty ;  and 
also  in  a  like  way  the  riparian  states  were  given  power 
to  levy  taxes  and  tolls  for  the  purposes  of  paying  the 
expenses  of  keeping  the  river  navigable.  Lord  Cow- 
ley, the  English  plenipotentiary,  protested ;  and  the 
representatives  of  France,  Prussia,  Russia,  and  Sar- 
dinia fully  agreed  with  him.  Turkey  refused  to  apply 
the  regulations  for  navigation,  on  the  ground  that  they 
had  not  been  approved  by  Europe,  and  therefore  the 
whole  project  of  Austria  fell  to  the  ground.  The 
representatives  of  the  powers  at  the  same  time  re- 
fused to  put  an  end  to  the  European  Commission  be- 
cause the  works  for  clearing  the  mouths  of  the  Danube 
had  not  yet  been  finished.  The  European  Commis- 
sion proved  so  successful  that  when  a  subsequent 
conference  met  at  Paris  in  1856  it  was  retained.  Par- 
ticular attention  had  been  given  to  the  Sulina  mouth  ; 
and  here  the  works  executed  by  Sir  Charles  Hartley 
had  deepened  the  channel  of  the  river  from  seven 
feet  in  1856  to  seventeen  and  a  half  feet  in  1863.  In 
five  years  the  shipwrecks  in  passing  the  mouths  of  the 
Danube  had  been  0.81  per  cent,  of  the  total  number 


356  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

of  vessels;  whereas  after  i860  they  were  reduced  to 
0.21  per  cent.,  and  the  commerce  had  greatly  increased. 

Up  to  1 87 1,  therefore,  there  were  three  different 
regulations  applied  to  the  Danube :  From  Isaktcha  to 
the  mouth  those  of  the  European  Commission  ;  from 
Orsova  up  to  Iller,  the  head  of  navigation,  the  regula- 
tions established  by  Austria,  and  the  riparian  Ger- 
man states ;  only  the  intermediate  part,  from  Orsova 
to  Isaktcha  was  under  the  same  want  of  regulation  as 
before  the  treaty  of  Paris ;  for  Turkey,  Avhich  was  a 
riparian  state  for  this  whole  portion,  had  refused  to 
put  the  regulations  into  force. 

When  Russia,  on  October  31,  1870,  declared  that 
she  could  no  longer  consider  herself  bound  by  the 
obligations  of  the  treaty  of  Paris,  as  far  as  they  re- 
stricted her  rights  of  sovereignty  in  the  Black  Sea, 
Austria  saw  that  she  should  gain  more  by  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  European  Commission,  and  that  the 
question  of  the  Danube  was  nearly  allied  to  that  of 
the  Black  Sea.  By  the  treaty  of  London  of  1871  it 
was  agreed  to  continue  the  duration  of  the  European 
Commission  for  twelve  years — that  is,  until  April  24, 
1883,  and  the  riparian  powers  were  allowed  to  levy 
tolls  for  the  removal  of  obstructions  at  the  Iron 
Gates. 

By  the  treaty  of  Berlin  of  1878,  which  followed  the 
Russian-Turkish  War,  another  change  was  made  with 
regard  to  the  Danube.     Bessarabia,  which  had  been 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  357 

taken  away  by  the  peace  of  Paris,  after  the  Crimean 
War,  was  retroceded  to  Russia ;  and  Russia  therefore 
became  riparian  on  the  Kilia  mouth  of  the  Danube, 
the  most  northern  of  the  three  chief  mouths,  and 
formerly  considered  the  best.  By  this  treaty,  in 
order  to  preserve  the  freedom  of  the  Danube,  all 
the  fortifications  and  forts  from  the  Iron  Gates  to 
the  mouth  were  ordered  to  be  razed,  and  no  new 
ones  could  be  erected.  No  vessel  of  war  was  al- 
lowed to  navigate  the  Danube  below  the  Iron  Gates, 
with  the  exception  of  those  of  the  river  police  and 
customs.  Despatch-boats  of  the  great  powers,  gen- 
erally stationed  at  the  mouth  of  the  Danube,  were 
allowed  to  ascend  the  Danube  as  high  as  Galatz. 
The  powers  of  the  European  Commission  were  ex- 
tended from  Isaktcha  to  Galatz,  nearly  fifty  miles 
further.  Austria-Hungary  then  desired  the  perma- 
nent continuance  of  the  European  Commission,  but 
objections  were  made  by  Russia  ;  and,  without  finally 
deciding  the  matter,  the  treaty  merely  stipulated  that 
an  agreement  of  some  kind  should  be  made  one  year 
before  the  expiration  of  the  powers  of  the  Commission. 
It  was,  however,  arranged  that  regulations  respecting 
navigation,  river  police,  and  supervision,  from  Galatz 
up  to  the  Iron  Gates,  should  be  drawn  up  by  the 
European  Commission,  assisted  by  delegates  of  the 
riparian  states,  and  put  in  harmony  with  the  regula- 
tions made  for  that  portion  of  the  river  below  Galatz. 


358  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

The  general  Riparian  Commission  provided  for  by  the 
treaty  of  Paris  was  tacitly  allowed  to  become  extinct ; 
and  the  works  for  removing  the  cataracts  at  the  Iron 
Gates  were  transferred  from  the  riparian  powers  to 
Austria-Hungary.  Such  was  the  haste  to  conclude 
the  treaty  of  Berlin,  that  nothing  was  provided  for 
the  execution  of  the  regulations  for  the  Middle 
Danube,  the  propositions  both  of  the  Austrian  and 
the  Russian  plenipotentiaries  having  been  rejected. 
Article  55  spoke  only  of  the  preparation  of  the 
regulations.  The  European  Commission  of  the  Dan- 
ube met,  and  after  a  long  discussion  decided,  in  spite 
of  the  opposition  of  Roumania,  which  by  the  treaty 
of  Berlin  had  been  allowed  to  have  a  member  of  the 
European  Commission,  to  bring  in  a  preliminary  draft 
of  regulations.  These  provided  that  a  so-called 
Mixed  Commission  should  be  appointed,  composed  of 
delegates  of  the  riparian  states,  and  also  of  a  delegate 
of  Austria-Hungary,  which  latter  should  have  the 
presidency  and  a  casting  vote.  In  this  way  Austria- 
Hungary,  without  being  a  riparian  power  for  this  por- 
tion of  the  river,  would  be  able  to  decide  all  questions 
with  regard  to  the  navigation  of  the  Danube,  and 
would  have  the  predominance  on  the  river  below  the 
Iron  Gates,  at  the  expense  of  the  riparian  powers  and 
perhaps  also  of  the  general  interests  of  the  world. 
This  preliminary  draft  met  with  such  objections  that 
it  had  to  be  abandoned. 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  359 

After  some  very  stormy  sessions  and  long  discus- 
sions the  French  delegate,  Mr.  Barrere,  afterward 
the  French  representative  in  Egypt,  proposed  as  a  so- 
lution that  not  only  Austria-Hungary  should  sit  in 
the  Mixed  Commission  with  the  delegates  of  the  ri- 
parian states,  and  should  have  the  presidency,  but  also 
that  there  should  be  present  a  delegate  from  the  Eu- 
ropean Commission,  appointed  for  six  months  in  regu- 
lar alphabetical  order.  The  Mixed  Commission,  being 
thus  raised  from  four  to  five  members,  there  would  be 
no  necessity  for  a  casting  vote.  Another  advantage 
was  that  there  would  thus  be  a  connection  established 
between  the  Mixed  Commission  and  the  European 
Commission,  which  would  imply  some  sort  of  a  con- 
trol by  Europe.  The  difficulties  were,  that,  owing  to 
the  alphabetical  arrangement,  the  names  of  the  powers 
being  in  French  (the  language  generally  adopted  in 
diplomatic  acts)  Austria  and  Germany  would  have 
the  first  two  representatives  from  the  European  Com- 
mission ;  and  it  would  naturally  be  during  the  first 
year  that  the  regulations  for  the  Mixed  Commission 
would  be  made.  As  Germany  was  acting  in  concert 
with  Austria,  this  was  really  equivalent  to  giving 
Austria  two  votes,  although,  strictly  speaking,  Aus- 
tria was  not  a  riparian  power,  but  simply  a  power 
holding  a  portion  of  the  upper  waters  of  the  river,  and 
therefore  having  a  great  interest  in  the  regulations 
for  the  navigation  of  the  lower  portion.     Roumania, 


360  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

in  its  turn,  would  have  had  two  delegates ;  but  its 
turn  would  have  been  the  last,  and  it  then  would 
have  been  difficult  to  have  changed  the  regulations 
previously  adopted.  Roumania  absolutely  refused  to 
accept  the  proposition  of  Barrere,  yet,  in  spite  of  this 
opposition,  and  of  the  rule  which  demanded  that  all 
of  the  decisions  of  the  European  Commission  should 
be  taken  unanimously,  it  was  decided  to  report  the 
result  to  the  powers.  This  resolution  was  signed  on 
June  2,  1882.  The  powers  of  the  European  Commis- 
sion expired  in  less  than  a  year.  All  countries,  but 
especially  England,  which  had  sixty-seven  per  cent,  of 
the  total  navigation  of  the  mouths  of  the  river,  were 
greatly  interested  in  the  result ;  and  in  consequence  of 
negotiations  Lord  Granville  proposed  a  conference  at 
London  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  dispute. 

An  additional  difficulty  was  raised  by  Russia,  who 
proposed  to  withdraw  from  the  control  of  the  Euro- 
pean Commission  that  part  of  the  northern  mouths  of 
the  Danube  under  its  exclusive  jurisdiction,  including 
the  mouth  of  Otchakof,  which  had  formerly  been  the 
chief  mouth.  Russia  proposed  not  only  to  prevent 
the  officers  of  the  European  Commission  from  visiting 
the  mouths  which  she  exclusively  controlled,  but  to 
execute  works  which,  if  successful,  it  was  urged  by 
others,  would  perhaps  divert  the  whole  of  the  com- 
merce from  the  Sulina  mouth  of  the  Danube,  the  only 
one  which  so  far  had  been  improved,  and  thus  render 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  36 1 

the  European  Commission  of  no  account.  These  fears 
seem  to  be  groundless ;  but  there  were  other  political 
considerations,  of  which  it  is  enough  to  mention  that 
by  the  possession  of  these  months  exclusively,  Rus- 
sia could  prepare  vessels  and  munitions  there,  en- 
abling her  at  any  time  to  sail  up  the  Danube  in  case 
of  a  future  war  in  that  region.  The  conference  of 
London  met  in  February,  1883.  Austria  refused  to 
assent  to  the  prolongation  of  the  European  Com- 
mission, unless  the  Mixed  Commission,  in  conformity 
with  the  principles  of  the  Barrere  amendment — which 
was  the  last  concession  that  she  would  make — were 
accepted.  Russia  demanded,  for  the  sake  of  the 
liberty  of  the  Danube,  the  exemption  of  her  mouths 
from  European  control ;  and  Great  Britain,  in  order 
to  save  something  for  her  large  commerce,  agreed  to 
yield  to  both.  Roumania  had  a  natural  title  to  be 
present  at  this  conference,  not  only  as  a  riparian 
power  of  the  Danube,  but  also  as  having  a  delegate  in 
the  European  Commission.  But  her  representatives, 
as  well  as  those  of  Serbia  and  Bulgaria,  were  ex- 
cluded. In  spite  of  her  protests,  the  conference  ac- 
cepted in  principle  the  Mixed  Commission,  and  the 
powers  even  ratified  the  treaty,  although  it  was  evident 
that  it  could  not  be  enforced  without  the  consent  of 
Roumania,  a  riparian  power.  It  could  not  be  ex- 
pected that  the  powers  would  resort  to  force  to  im- 
pose measures  which  had  been  absolutely  rejected  by 


362  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the  chief  riparian  power  ;  for  at  least  one-third  of  the 
navigable  distance  of  the  Danube  had  one  bank  be- 
longing to  Roumania.  In  spite  of  the  Austrian  rep- 
resentation, the  conference  refused  to  make  its  deci- 
sions executory.  Although  ratified,  the  decisions  of 
the  conference,  as  far  as  Roumania  was  concerned,  re- 
mained in  abeyance.  Russia  is  the  only  power 
which  has  attained  anything,  for  it  was  agreed  that 
the  Russian  mouths  of  the  Danube  should  be  ex- 
empted from  the  operation  of  the  European  Com- 
mission. By  the  convention  of  London  the  powers 
of  the  European  Commission  were  extended  from 
three  years  to  three  years,  unless  denounced  by  one 
of  the  signatory  powers;  and  the  powers  of  the 
Commission  were  extended  up  the  river  as  far  as 
Braila. 

To  these  measures  Roumania  made  no  objection. 
The  question  of  the  free  navigation  of  rivers  had 
reached  a  singular  phase.  The  states  in  possession  of 
the  mouths  and  the  lower  portion  of  the  Danube  were 
in  favor  of  free  navigation,  while  the  power  holding 
the  upper  portion  of  the  river  was  desirous  of  restrict- 
ing the  navigation  of  the  lower  portion  in  its  own 
interests  and  in  the  interests  of  monopolies  created 
by  it. 

The  result  is  that,  at  the  present  time,  there  are 
eight  different  systems  of  regulation  for  the  Danube, 
instead  of  one  for  the  whole  river,  which  was  pro- 


FREE   NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  363 

vided  for  by  the  treaty  of  Paris  of  1856.     We  have, 
according  to  the  convention  of  London, 

Firsts  The  regime  of  Wiirtemberg  and  Bavaria,  for 
the  highest  portion  of  the  river. 

Second,  That  of  Austria-Hungary. 

Third,  That  of  Serbia. 

Fourth,  That  of  the  Iron  Gates,  which  is  confided 
to  Austria-Hungary. 

Fifth,  That  of  the  Mixed  Commission,  from  the 
Iron  Gates  to  Braila. 

Sixth,  That  of  the  European  Commission. 

Seventh,  That  of  Russia  and  Roumania,  on  the 
Kilia  branch. 

Eighth,  That  of  Russia  on  the  Otchakof  mouth.* 

*  See  Etienne  Carathedory,  Du  droit  international  concer- 
nant  les grands  cours  d^eau,  Leipzig,  1861  ;  E.  Engelhardt,  Du 
rigime  conventionnel  des  fleuves  inter nationaux,  Paris,  1879; 
von  Holtzendorfif,  Rumdniens  Uferrechte  an  der  Donau,  Leip- 
zig, 1883  ;  F.  Heinrich  Geffcken,  La  question  du  Danube^  Ber- 
lin, 1883  ;  F.  von  Martens,  Volkerrecht ;  the  protocols  of  the 
European  Commission  and  of  the  London  Conference. 


364  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 


/.-THE  CONGO  AND  THE   NIGER. 

Very  recently  the  principles  of  free  navigation  have 
been  extended  to  two  great  rivers  of  the  African  con- 
tinent. Mr.  Henry  M.  Stanley,  under  the  patronage 
of  the  King  of  Belgium,  had  for  some  years  been  ex- 
ploring the  valley  of  the  Congo  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  its  capabilities  for  trade.  It  was  gen- 
erally understood  that  this  region  was  soon  to  be 
opened  freely  to  the  trade  of  the  world,  when  the 
governments  of  England  and  Portugal,  both  jealous 
of  any  interference  with  their  rights  on  the  west 
coast  of  Africa,  made  the  treaty  of  February  26,  1884, 
by  which  that  portion  of  the  southwest  African 
coast  between  south  latitude  5°  12'  and  5°  18^  was 
recognized  as  Portuguese.  This  gave  the  mouth  of 
the  river  Congo  to  Portugal,  and  cut  off  the  domain 
of  the  International  African  Association  from  the 
sea.  France,  which  claimed  some  rights  to  the 
Congo  valley,  in  consequence  of  the  explorations  of 
Monsieur  De  Brazza,  and  of  the  treaties  made  by 
him  with  various  African  chiefs,  immediately  pro- 
tested ;  so  also  did  Germany  and  the  United  States, 
on  more  general  principles.  The  subject  was  brought 
to  the  attention  of  Congress,  and  by  a  resolution  of 
the   Senate    of  April    10,    1884,   the   President   was 


FREE  NAVIGATION  OF  RIVERS.  365 

authorized  to  recognize  the  International  African 
Association.  This  was  done  by  proclamation.  In 
consequence  of  the  disputes  to  which  the  Anglo-Por- 
tuguese treaty  gave  rise — which,  it  must  be  said,  was 
thoroughly  disapproved  of  in  the  commercial  centres 
of  England — Germany  finally  called  a  conference  of 
the  chief  commercial  and  maritime  states,  which  met 
at  Berlin  on  November  15,  1884.  In  this  congress 
there  were  representatives  of  Germany,  Austria,  Bel- 
gium, Denmark,  Spain,  the  United  States,  France, 
Great  Britain,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Rus- 
sia, Sweden,  and  Turkey.  Turkey  was  admitted, 
because,  on  the  basis  of  his  rights  as  Caliph,  the  Sul- 
tan claimed  some  indefinite  spiritual  jurisdiction  over 
the  Mussulmans  in  the  interior  of  Africa.  After  long 
discussion,  a  treaty  having  been  objected  to,  a  general 
act  was  agreed  upon,  and  signed  on  February  26, 
1885,  which  established  the  Free  State  of  the  Congo, 
into  which  the  African  International  Association  was 
merged,  and  granted,  first,  freedom  of  trade  in  the 
basin  of  the  Congo,  its  mouths,  and  certain  adjacent 
districts;  second,  the  free  navigation  of  the  river 
Congo,  in  all  its  mouths  and  branches,  to  be  exercised 
under  the  supervision  of  an  international  commission, 
on  the  principles  set  forth  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna 
of  181 5,  and  the  treaties  of  Paris  of  1856,  of  Berlin  of 
1878,  and  of  London  of  1871  and  1883;  and,  third, 
the  free  navigation  of  the  river  Niger  and  its  branches, 


366  AMERICAN  DIPL OMA  C V. 

without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  England  and 
France,  who  agreed  to  carry  out  the  treaty  in  the 
waters  under  their  jurisdiction. 

President  Cleveland,  in  his  message  of  December  8, 
1885,  refused  to  ask  the  Senate  to  approve  of  this 
general  act,  on  the  ground  that  "  an  engagement  to 
share  in  the  obligation  of  enforcing  neutrality  in  the 
remote  valley  of  the  Congo  would  be  an  alliance 
whose  responsibilities  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  as- 
sume." Mr.  J.  A.  Kasson,  one  of  the  delegates  of  the 
United  States  to  the  conference,  in  an  article  in  the 
North  American  Review  for  February,  1886,  seems 
to  show  that  this  action  is  based  on  a  misunder- 
standing of  the  provision  of  the  act.  Indeed,  there 
is  nothing  whatever  expressed  in  that  document  about 
"  enforcing "  neutrality.  The  powers  have  agreed 
only  to  "  respect  the  neutrality  of  the  territory."* 

So  far  as  the  free  navigation  of  the  Congo  and  the 
Niger  are  concerned,  it  makes  little  difference  to  us 
whether  we  ratify  the  act  or  not.  These  rivers  are 
open  to  the  whole  world.  The  only  detrimental  re- 
sult is  that  we  can  take  no  share  in  preparing  or 
executing  the  regulations  governing  such  free  naviga- 
tion. We  lose  an  opportunity  of  doing  a  service  to 
our  future^  commerce  with  Africa. 

*  See  the  full  text  of  the  General  Act,  and  especially  Chap- 
ter III.,  which  is  printed  in  Mr.  H.  M.  Stanley's  last  book  on 
the  Congo. 


VII. 
NEUTRAL  RIGHTS. 

Subjection  of  Neutrals. — Our  Treaty  with  France  of  1778. — 
Armed  Neutrality  of  1780. — Its  Origin. — Our  Treaties  with 
the  Netherlands,  Sweden,  and  Prussia. — Franklin's  Ideas. 
— John  Quincy  Adams  and  the  Renewal  of  the  Prussian 
Treaty. — Our  Negotiations  of  1823  to  Preserve  Private 
Property  from  Capture  at  Sea. — Letters  of  Marque. — 
Privateering. — Declarations  of  1854. — Our  Reply. — 
Treaty  with  Russia. — President  Pierce's  Message. — Decla- 
ration of  Paris  of  1856. — The  Marcy  Amendment. — Opin- 
ions of  other  Powers. — English  Opposition. — Cessation  of 
Negotiations  under  President  Buchanan. — Proposal  of 
Mr.  Seward.  —  Its  Rejection.  —  European  Wars.  —  Our 
Treaty  with  Italy  of  187 1. 

After  having  explained  to  a  limited  extent  the  ef- 
forts of  the  United  States  to  secure  the  freedom  of 
navigation  and  commerce  in  time  of  peace,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  mention  briefly  what  they  have  attempted  to 
do  for  the  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation  in 
time  of  war. 

I  At  the  outbreak  of  the  American  Revolution  the 
commerce  of  the  world  was  governed,  or  rather  mis- 
governed, by  a  system  of  arbitrary  and  contradictory 
rules  imposed  by  the  great  maritime  powers,  especially 


368  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

Great  Britain,  all  tending  one  way,  to  the  effacement 
and  abolition  of  all  rights  of  small  neutral  states 
when  the  larger  powers  were  at  war  with  each  other. 
According  to  the  rules  of  English  fair-play  the  ring 
was  to  be  cleared,  and  outsiders  were  allowed  to  com- 
municate with  each  other  only  under  severe  pains  and 
penalties.  The  world  was  to  stand  still,  and  starve, 
it  might  be,  whenever  England  fought. 

In  the  very  first  commercial  treaty  made  by  the 
United  States,  that  with  France  of  February  6,  1778, 
signed  on  the  same  day  with  the  treaty  of  alliance, 
Ave  adopted  the  more  liberal  maxim,  already  pro- 
claimed by  France,  that  "  free  ships  make  free  goods." 
It  was  agreed  also  that  so  far  as  France  and  the 
United  States  were  concerned,  either  nation  should 
be  allowed  to  trade  with  one  at  war  with  the  other 
without  danger  of  capture,  and,  therefore,  that  the 
ships  of  either  of  these  two  countries  could  carry  the 
property  belonging  to  enemies  without  risk ;  that  free 
ships  shall  also  give  a  freedom  to  goods,  and  that 
everything  shall  be  deemed  to  be  free  and  exempt 
which  shall  be  found  on  board  of  the  ships,  although 
the  whole  lading  or  any  part  thereof  should  pertain  to 
the  enemies  of  either,  contraband  goods  being  always 
excepted.  The  definition  of  contraband  goods  was 
also  laid  down  as  being  solely  munitions  of  war.  Mer- 
chandise which  had  in  some  instances  by  some  coun- 
tries been  prohibited,  such  as  cloths,  manufactured 


NEUTRAL  RIGHTS.  369 

articles,  gold  and  silver,  metals,  tobacco,  fish,  grain, 
and  other  provisions,  and  even  cotton,  hemp,  flax,  tar, 
pitch,  ropes,  cables  and  sails,  and  materials  for  mak- 
ing ships,  were  not  to  be  regarded  as  contraband. 

This  treaty  preceded,  but  not  by  a  long  time,  the 
declaration  of  the  northern  powers  of  Europe  as  to 
the  rights  of  neutral  trade,  which  is  generally  spoken 
of  under  the  name  of  the  "  Armed  Neutrality." 

The  first  idea  of  the  armed  neutrality  is  now  ad- 
mitted to  have  belonged  to  Russia,  but  for  a  long 
time  it  was  ascribed  by  many  writers  to  Frederick  the 
Great,  and  the  French  Abbe  Denina,  in  his  biography 
of  Frederick  the  Second,  affirmed  that  even  in  1744 
Frederick  had  dreamed  of  a  confederation  of  this  sort. 
Catherine  II.,  on  reading  the  book  of  Denina,  wrote 
opposite  that  passage  :  "  This  is  untrue.  The  idea  of 
the  armed  neutrality  arose  in  the  brain  of  Catherine 
II.  and  of  no  one  else.  Count  Bezborodko  can  bear 
witness  that  this  thought  was  expressed  by  the  Em- 
press very  unexpectedly.  Count  Panin  did  not  wish 
to  hear  about  an  armed  neutrality.  This  idea  did  not 
belong  to  him,  and  it  took  much  labor  to  convince 
him,  so  that  it  was  confided  to  Bakunin,  who  carried 
out  this  business."* 

Wheaton,  and  most  writers  on  international   law 
who  have  succeeded  him,  have  followed  the  version 
given  by  Baron  von  Goertz  in  a  little  pamphlet  which 
*  Diary  of  A.  V.  Khrapovitzky,  p.  475. 
24 


3/0  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

he  published,  first  anonymously,  and  then  under  his 
own  name,*  in  which  he  gave  the  credit  of  the  armed 
neutrality  to  Count  Panin  as  a  means  of  counteracting 
the  efforts  of  the  English  minister,  Mr.  James  Harris, 
afterward  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  who  was  endeavoring 
to  gain  the  Empress  to  take  the  side  of  England. 
Goertz  was  in  some  respects  a  clever  man,  but  he  sig- 
nally failed  in  all  his  missions,  and  his  pamphlet  was 
written,  or  at  least  published,  after  the  death  of  most 
of  the  parties  concerned.  His  motives  may  be 
guessed  at,  but  it  is  not  worth  our  while  to  consider 
them.  Since  that  time  not  only  has  the  correspond- 
ence of  Lord  Malmesbury  been  published,  but  the 
history  of  the  armed  neutrality,  from  the  Russian  point 
of  view,  supported  by  a  complete  series  of  documents, 
has  also  been  given  to  light.t  We  find  from  these 
papers  not  only  that  Goertz  is  entirely  wrong  as  to 
the  way  in  which  the  armed  neutrality  arose,  but  even 
as  to  its  date.  J     Although  the  final  declaration  was 

*  Me  moire  ou  precis  historique  sur  la  neutralite  armee  et  son 
origine.     Bale,  1795  and  1801. 

f  See  the  Russian  Nautical  Magazine  [Morskoi  Sbornik)^ 
1859,  Nos.  9,  10,  II,  12. 

X  Professor  Carl  Bergbohm,  of  Dorpat,  in  his  very  interest- 
ing and  instructive  work,  Die  beivaffnete  Neutralitdt  (Berlin, 
1884),  attempts  to  uphold  the  exact  truth  of  the  version  of 
Goertz.  The  question  is  not  of  great  interest,  except  to  stu- 
dents of  Russian  or  of  diplomatic  history  ;  but  the  book  of 
Bergbohm  seems  an  attempt  to  support  a  paradoxical  theory, 
simply  as  an  exercise  of  dialectic  power,  like  many  other 
German  theses  of  the  present  day. 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  37 1 

dated  in  1780,  yet  preliminary  steps  were  taken  and 
were  known  to  the  cabinets  of  Europe  as  early  as  De- 
cember, 1778. 

•  In  1778  a  number  of  American  privateers  appeared 
in  the  northern  ocean  and  did  considerable  injury  to 
trade  carried  on  by  foreign  merchants  with  the  Russian 
port  of  Archangel.  The  Empress  Catherine,  desiring 
to  protect  her  commerce,  resolved  in  the  subsequent 
summer  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the  courts  of 
Denmark  and  Sweden  for  taking  protective  measures 
in  common.  Count  Panin,  the  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  to  whom  the  matter  was  referred,  reported 
that  the  peculiarity  of  the  trade  was  such  that  the 
only  harm  caused  to  Russia  was  by  the  capture  of 
vessels  sailing  for  Archangel.  If  they  were  taken,  the 
goods  might  wait  for  a  whole  year  for  a  foreign  pur- 
chaser ;  but,  once  the  goods  having  been  bought  and 
despatched  to  a  foreign  port,  it  made  no  difference  to 
Russia  whether  the  English  or  the  Americans  profited 
by  them.  The  Empress  decided  to  send  three  or  four 
ships  and  a  frigate  to  protect  the  foreign  trade  going 
to  Archangel,  without  distinction,  and  orders  were 
given  to  advise  the  English,  French,  and  American 
cruisers  to  leave  those  waters,  as  they  would  not  be 
allowed  to  carry  on  their  trade  near  the  Russian 
coasts.  Any  actual  attack  on  a  merchant  vessel 
might  be  repelled  by  force.     Denmark  and  Sweden 

were  asked  to  send  to  sea  similar  armed  squadrons  to 


372  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

act  in  connection  with  Russia.  Count  Bernstorff, 
the  Danish  minister,  replied  that  Denmark  was  so 
bound  by  treaties  that  it  would  be  difficult  for  them 
to  co-operate  with  Russia,  as  it  would  be  a  breach  of 
their  neutrality,  for  the  whole  advantage  would  be 
given  to  English  ships.  They  were  willing,  however, 
to  protect  foreign  commercial  marine,  but  owing  to 
having  distant  colonies  it  was  necessary  to  be  careful 
about  the  steps  taken.  Sweden,  to  which  the  same 
proposition  was  made  in  February,  1779,  agreed  to 
them  ;  but  proposed  at  the  same  time  taking  broader 
measures  for  protecting  neutral  navigation  even  in 
the  more  distant  seas.  Russia  actually  sent,  in  1779, 
into  the  northern  ocean,  for  the  protection  of  trading 
vessels,  four  ships  and  two  frigates.  The  whole  year, 
however,  passed  in  these  negotiations,  which  led  to  no 
decisive  result. 

The  capture,  however,  of  two  ships  laden  with 
Russian  wares — one  Dutch  and  the  other  Russian — 
by  Spanish  cruisers,  in  the  beginning  of  1780,  and 
their  condemnation  and  sale  in  Cadiz,  as  being  prob- 
ably bound  for  Gibraltar,  made  the  Empress  so  angry 
that  in  the  representations  to  the  Spanish  govern- 
ment, conveyed  both  by  the  Russian  minister  at  Mad- 

— ^ 
rid,  and  the  Spanish  minister  at   St.  Petersburg,  she 

demanded  that  all  neutral  ships  carrying  Russian 
goods  should  be  free  from  capture,  and  that  compen- 
sation should  be  made  for  those  which  had  already 


NEUTRAL  RIGHTS.  373 

been  taken.  At  the  same  time  an  order  was  given  to 
fit  out,  for  readiness  at  the  opening  of  navigation,  two 
ships  and  two  frigates,  destined  for  the  northern  ocean 
as  before,  and  fifteen  other  ships  for  any  destination 
which  might  be  given  them.  The  Empress  ordered 
Count  Panin  to  say  in  reply  to  questions,  that  this 
squadron  was  fitted  out  for  the  defence  of  the  Rus- 
sian flag,  and  that  the  Empress  proposed  to  send 
them  wherever  the  honor,  profit,  and  need  of  the 
country  demanded.  On  February  27,  1780,  the  Rus- 
sian government  sent  to  the  courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles, and  Madrid,  the  well-known  declaration  about 
neutral  rights,  the  points  of  which  were,  first,  that 
neutral  ships  can  freely  go  from  port  to  port,  and  on 
the  coasts  of  the  nations  at  war ;  second,  that  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  subjects  of  the  powers  at  war  is 
free  on  neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  contra- 
band ;  third,  that  only  arms  and  ammunition  arc 
recognized  as  contraband  ;  fourth,  that  blockades 
must  be  effective  ;  and  fifth,  that  nothing  but  contra- 
band can  make  a  lawful  prize. 

Formal  propositions  were  then  made  to  Denmark, 
Sweden,  Portugal,  and  the  Netherlands,  for  taking 
similar  measures  and  concluding  conventions  for  that 
purpose.  France  and  Spain  replied  to  the  Russian 
declaration  by  the  assurance  of  their  readiness  to 
respect  neutral  rights.  Spain  excused  her  action 
toward  the  Russian  ships  on  the  ground  of  the  at- 


374  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

tempts  made  to  enter  Gibraltar,  and  by  English  ex- 
amples, but  promised  to  make  indemnity.  England 
replied  negatively  that  she  had  always  considered  it 
her  duty  to  give  due  respect  to  the  Russian  flag,  and 
assured  the  Empress  that  the  navigation  of  her  sub- 
jects would  never  be  interrupted  or  stopped  by 
British  vessels. 

The  negotiations  with  the  neutral  powers  resulted 
in  a  convention  between  Russia  and  Denmark  on 
July  9,  1780,  and  with  Spain,  on  August  ist  of  the 
same  year,  agreeing  to  the  doctrine  already  laid 
down  in  the  Russian  declaration.  The  Netherlands 
agreed  to  the  same  principle  at  the  end  of  December. 
Prussia,  Austria,  Portugal,  and  the  Two  Sicilies  all 
accepted  it  within  the  two  years  following.  The 
United  States,  by  a  resolution  of  Congress  dated 
October  5,  1780,  gave  its  adherence  to  the  principle 
claimed  by  the  armed  neutrality,  and  offered  to  join 
the  northern  league.  Mr.  Adams  communicated  this 
action  of  Congress  to  the  Dutch  government,  as  well 
as  to  the  ministers  of  Russia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark, 
in  March,  1781  ;  but  as  none  of  these  governments 
were  yet  prepared  to  recognize  the  United  States,  no 
further  action  was  taken.  | 

'  In  the  treaty  with  the  Netherlands,  in  1782,  the 
provisions  for  guaranteeing  neutral  rights  were  practi- 
cally the  same  as  those  in  the  treaty  of  1778  with 
France,  that  is,  that  free  ships  made  free  goods,  and 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  3/5 

that  goods  found  in  an  enemy's  ship  would  be  liable 
to  be  confiscated,  unless  put  on  board  before  declara- 
tion of  war  or  within  six  months  thereafter.  The 
definition  of  contraband  goods  was  perfected. 

By  the  treaty  with  Sweden  of  1783 — the  first  power 
which  voluntarily  offered  its  friendship  to  the  United 
States — the  same  provisions  were  repeated.  A  similar 
treaty  would  have  been  made  with  Denmark,  had  not, 
under  the  pressure  of  England,  Denmark  captured 
some  American  vessels  engaged  in  trade  prohibited 
by  England. 

The  treaty  with  Prussia  in  1785  introduced  some 
entirely  new  principles.  It  was  negotiated  under  the 
influence  of  Dr.  Franklin  and  of  King  Frederick  the 
Great,  and  it  has  been  often  said  that,  owing  to  the 
slight  probability  that  Prussia  and  the  United  States 
should  be  brought  into  conflict,  the  philanthropic 
provisions  inserted  in  it  were  merely  such  declarations 
as  speculative  theorists  might  safely  indulge  in.  Dr. 
Franklin,  however,  had  already  attempted  to  insert 
similar  provisions  in  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Great 
Britain  in  1783.  The  English  negotiators  at  that 
time  refused  to  discuss  the  question  of  maritime 
rights.  By  this  treaty  with  Prussia  free  ships  made 
absolutely  free  goods,  and  no  goods  were  to  be 
regarded  as  contraband  so  as  to  justify  confiscation, 
although  the  vessels  carrying  contraband  goods  could 
be  retained  until  the  contraband  goods  were  taken 


37^  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

out,  and  in  that  case  such  contraband  goods  being 
military  stores  could  be  used  by  the  captors  if  the 
current  price  were  paid  for  them.  Blockades  of  all 
kinds  were  practically  abolished,  for  merchant  and 
trading  vessels  were  to  be  allowed  to  pass  free  and 
unmolested,  and  privateering  was  entirely  abolished 
as  between  the  two  countries.  Dr.  Franklin  had  al- 
ready written  on  March  14,  1785  : 

"  It  is  high  time,  for  the  sake  of  humanity,  that  a  stop  were 
put  to  this  enormity.  The  United  States  of  America,  though 
better  situated  than  any  European  power  to  make  profit  by 
privateering,  are,  as  far  as  in  them  lies,  endeavoring  to  abolish 
the  practice  by  offering  in  all  their  treaties  with  other  powers 
an  article  engaging  solemnly  that  in  case  of  future  war  no 
privateer  shall  be  commissioned  on  either  side,  and  that  all 
marine  ships  on  both  sides  shall  proceed  on  their  voyages  un- 
molested. This  will  be  a  happy  improvement  of  the  law  of 
nations.  The  humane  and  the  just  cannot  but  wish  general 
success  to  the  proposition." 


li 


In  making  the  treaty  of  1794  with  England,  com- 
monly known  as  Jay's  treaty,  the  United  States  were 
obliged  from  imperative  reasons  (this  seemed  the  only 
course  possible  to  prevent  a  war)  to  retrace  their  steps 
and  to  admit,  as  far  as  England  was  concerned,  certain 
principles  of  maritime  law  which  they  had  always  op- 
posed. It  was  expressly  agreed  that  the  flag  did  not 
cover  the  merchandise, — the  only  treaty  signed  by  the 
United  States  in  which  this  acknowledgment  can  be 
found.     Ship   timber,    tar,    hemp,   sails,   and    copper 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  377 

were  declared  contraband,  although  they  had  been 
made  free  in  the  other  treaties  concluded  at  that  time 
by  the  United  States.  Provisions  also  were  declared 
contraband.  There  was  no  definition  of  the  right  of 
search  and  blockade,  but  both  were  acknowledged  in 
general  ternis. 

The  treaty  with  Prussia  expired  by  its  own  limita- 
tion in  1796,  and  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  was  sent 
to  Berlin  for  its  renewal.  Mr.  Adams,  although  still  a 
young  man  of  only  thirty-two  years  of  age,  had  begun 
public  life  as  secretary  to  Mr.  Dana,  our  commissioner 
to  St.  Petersburg,  .and  had  recently  been  minister  to 
The  Hague.  He  had  been  appointed  to  Lisbon,  but 
was  finally  transferred  to  Berlin  for  the  purpose  of 
this  special  negotiation.  Subsequently  minister  at 
St.  Petersburg,  then  at  London,  afterward  Secretary 
of  State  for  eight  years,  and  finally  President,  he  was 
an  excellent  example  of  the  advantage  of  diplomatic 
training.  His  instructions  at  Berlin  were  to  negotiate 
a  treaty  which  was  in  opposition  not  only  to  his  own 
personal  views,  but  to  those  which  the  United  States 
had  previously  expressed,  and  have  subsequently  in- 
sisted upon.  He,  however,  took  up  the  matter  as  a 
lawyer  would  a  brief,  and  succeeded  in  satisfying  our 
Government.  He  was  aided  in  some  respects  by  the 
opportune  death  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  which  left 
him  several  months  without  credentials  for  the  new 
sovereign,  and  therefore  without  power  for  negotiating, 


378  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

a  circumstance  which  enabled  him  to  make  acquaint- 
ances extremely  useful  to  him. 

The  position  of  the  United  States  had  been  com- 
plicated not  only  by  the  treaty  of  1794  with  Great 
Britain,  but  by  the  action  of  England  and  France  in 
the  war.  The  principles  of  "  free  ships,  free  goods," 
which  we  had  recognized  in  all  our  treaties  and  de- 
sired to  become  universal,  we  found  to  be  of  no  avail 
so  long  as  it  was  not  universally  recognized  by  mari- 
time nations.  In  fact  it  had  been  observed  by  other 
powers  only  when  it  would  operate  to  the  detriment 
of  the  United  States,  and  not  to.  our  benefit.  Mr. 
Adams  was  therefore  instructed  to  propose  the  aban- 
donment of  this  article.  The  Prussian  negotiators 
objected  to  giving  it  up  entirely,  on  the  ground  of  the 
confusion  which  it  would  cause  in  the  commercial 
speculations  of  nations,  and  the  rejection  of  claims 
prosecuted  by  them  in  the  admiralty  courts  of  France 
and  Great  Britain,  relating  to  the  captures  and  colli- 
sions with  the  northern  powers,  which  were  sustaining 
this  principle  at  that  very  moment  by  armed  convoys, 
and  proposed  a  qualification.  After  a  long  discussion, 
in  which  Mr.  Adams  fully  carried  out  the  views  of 
our  Government,  a  treaty  was  agreed  upon  with  the 
following  article : 

"  Experience  having  proved  that  the  principles  adopted  in 
the  twelfth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1785,  according  to  which 
free  ships  make  free  goods,  has  not  been  sufficiently  respected 


NEUl^RAL  RIGHTS.  379 

during  the  last  two  wars,  and  especially  in  that  which  still  con- 
tinues, the  two  contracting  parties  propose,  after  the  return  of 
a  general  peace,  to  agree,  either  separately  between  them- 
selves, or  jointly  with  other  powers  alike  interested,  to  concert, 
with  the  great  maritime  powers  of  Europe,  such  arrangements 
and  such  permanent  principles  as  may  serve  to  consoUdate  the 
liberty  and  the  safety  of  the  neutral  navigation  and  commerce 
in  future  wars." 

After  it  was  approved,  by  the  wish  of  the  United 
States  to  prove  it  had  no  desire  to  part  from  the 
principles  of  the  treaty  of  1785,  there  was  added  : 

*'  If  in  the  interval  either  of  the  contracting  parties  should 
be  engaged  in  a  war  to  which  the  other  should  remain  neutral, 
the  ships  of  war  and  privateers  of  the  belligerent  power  shall 
conduct  themselves  toward  the  merchant  vessels  of  the  neutral 
power  as  favorably  as  the  course  of  war  then  existing  may  per- 
mit, observing  the  principles  and  rules  of  the  law  of  nations 
generally  acknowledged." 

The  treaty  of  1 799  itself  expired  in  ten  years,  and 
the  twelfth  article  of  the  original  treaty  of  1785  was 
again  revived  by  a  treaty  which  was  concluded  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Prussia  in  1828,  both 
parties  engaging  to  treat  at  some  future  and  con- 
venient period,  either  between  themselves  or  in  con- 
cert with  other  maritime  powers,  for  insuring  just 
protection  and  freedom  to  neutral  navigation  and 
commerce,  and  which  may,  at  the  same  time,  advance 
the  cause  of  civilization  and  humanity. 

For  various  reasons  it  is  inconvenient  here  to  speak 
of  the  impressment  of  seamen  on  board  of  American 


380  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ships,  and  of  the  infringement  of  neutral  rights  by  the 
orders  in  council  and  by  the  French  decrees,  which  led 
to  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Brit- 
ain of  1812.  Our  diplomatic  efforts  at  that  time,  and 
even  later,  were  chiefly  in  the  way  of  protests,  and  the 
question  of  impressment  was  only  finally  settled  by  the 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
of  1863,  modified  by  that  of  1871  on  the  subject  of 
naturalization.  During  the  war  of  181 2  prize  courts  in 
the  United  States  enforced  the  generally  acknowledged 
rule  of  international  law  that  enemies'  goods  in  neu- 
tral vessels  were  liable  to  capture  and  confiscation,  ex- 
cept as  to  such  powers  with  whom  we  had  stipulated 
the  contrary  rule  that  free  ships  should  make  free  goods. 
During  the  war  between  France  and  Spain  the 
French  government  proposed  not  to  capture  Spanish 
marine  ships,  and  in  an  official  proclamation  of  April 
20,  1823,  it  was  stated  that  the  King  only  considered 
as  enemies  of  France  pirates  and  Spanish  corsairs. 
These  alone  were  the  object  of  surveillance  of  the 
vessels  commanded  by  the  officers  of  the  military 
marine.  Apparently  the  French  did  not  persist  in 
this  mode  of  action,  for  in  the  treaty  concluded  after 
the  war  there  was  an  arrangement  for  indemnity  for 
the  prizes  taken   from   each  other  during  the  war.* 

*  See  Ch.  de  Boeck,  De  la  proprUte  privee  ennemie  sous 
pavilion  ennemi,  p.  97,  Paris,  1882  ;  Lawrence's  Wheaton, 
p.  630.      -^ 


NEUTRAL  RIGHTS.  38 1 

The  French  proclamation,  however,  was  made  the 
basis  of  action  by  our  Government,  and  President 
Monroe,  in  1823,  issued  instructions  to  our  ministers 
at  Paris,  London,  and  St.  Petersburg  to  propose  the 
abolition  in  future  hostilities  of  all  private  war  at  sea. 
These  instructions  were  probably  not  so  much  the 
work  of  President  Monroe  as  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams.  Starting  with  the 
proposal  to  abolish  the  slave-trade,  Mr.  Adams  sent  a 
draft  of  a  convention,  to  be  concluded  with  England 
and  other  maritime  powers,  the  prime  object  of  which 
was  to  take  the  first  steps  toward  the  general  aboli- 
tion by  all  nations  of  private  war  upon  the  sea.  In 
his  despatch  to  Mr.  Rush,  July  28,  1823,  Mr.  Adams 
said  :  ^.- 

**  The  result  of  the  abolition  of  private  maritime  war  would 
be  the  coincident  abolition  of  maritime  neutrality.  By  this 
the  neutral  nations  would  be  the  principal  losers,  and  sensible 
as  we  are  of  this  we  are  still  anxious,  from  higher  motives  than 
mere  commercial  gain,  that  the  principle  should  be  universally 
adopted.  We  are  willing  that  the  world,  in  common  with  our- 
selves, should  gain  in  peace  whatever  we  may  lose  in  profit." 

The  British  government  evaded  the  question.  Mr. 
Rush  was  empowered  to  treat  of  other  matters  as 
well,  and  was  unwilling  to  consider  the  general  mari- 
time questions  without  taking  into  action  that  of  im- 
pressment. This  England  absolutely  refused  to  con- 
sider, and  at  the  same  time  declined  to^iscuss  the 


382  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

question  of  the  abolition  of  privateering  without  dis- 
cussing the  other  maritime  questions,  so  that  there 
was  a  dead-lock.*  Chateaubriand,  in  replying  to  Mr. 
Sheldon,  our  charge  d'affaires  at  Paris,  was  appar- 
ently willing  to  accede  to  this  proposal  provided  all 
governments  did  the  same.     He  said  : 

"If  the  trial  successfully  made  by  France  can  induce  all 
governments  to  agree  on  the  general  principle  which  shall 
place  wise  limits  to  maritime  operations,  and  be  in  accordance 
with  the  sentiments  of  humanity,  his  Majesty  will  congratulate 
himself  still  more  in  having  given  the  salutary  example,  and  in 
having  proved  that,  without  compromising  the  success  of  war, 
its  scourge  can  be  abated." 

Count  Nesselrode,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Middleton,  said  : 

"  The  principle  will  not  be  of  great  utility  except  so  far  as  it 
shall  have  a  general  application." 

The  Emperor  sympathizes  with  the  opinions  and  wishes  of 
the  United  States,  and  *'  As  soon  as  the  powers  whose  consent 
he  considers  as  indispensable,  shall  have  shown  the  same  dis- 
position, he  will  not  be  wanting  in  authorizing  his  ministers  to 
discuss  the  different  articles  of  an  act  which  would  be  a  crown 
of  glory  to  modern  diplomacy."  f 

The  negotiation  with  Russia  went  on  through  dif- 
ferent ministers — Randolph,  Buchanan,  and  Wilkins 
— to  the  end  of  1835,  but  the  reply  was  always  in  the 
same  sense,  that  a  general  understanding  was  neces- 

*  Congress.  Doc,  Senate,  i8th  Congress,  2d  Session,  Confi- 
dential. 

f  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  3,  33d  Congress,  ist  Session. 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  383 

sary  before  making  any  special  treaties.  Attempts  to 
renew  negotiations  on  this  subject  with  Great  Britain 
were  made  by  Mr.  Gallatin  in  1826,  and  Mr.  Barbour 
in  1828,  but  without  success. 

The  rules  with  regard  to  the  duties  of  neutrals  dur- 
ing war  are  now  very  strict ;  but  it  was  received  for- 
merly that  neutral  subjects  could  command  and  own 
privateers,  provided  that  they  possessed  letters  of 
marque  from  one  of  the  belligerent  states.  In  order 
to  guard  against  this,  the  United  States,  from  the 
very  beginning,  inserted  in  its  treaties  with  foreign 
powers  stipulations  that  if  any  citizen  or  subject  of 
either  of  the  contracting  parties  took  a  commission  or 
letters  of  marque  for  the  purpose  of  privateering 
against  the  other  who  was  at  war,  it  should  be  treated 
as  piracy.  Such  treaties  were  made  with  France  in 
1778;  with 'the  Netherlands  in  1782;  with  Sweden 
in  1783,  renewed  in  18 16  and  again  in  1827  ;  with 
Prussia  in  1785,  renewed  in  1799,  and  again  in  1828; 
with  Great  Britain  in  1794;  with  Spain  in  1795  ;  with 
Colombia  in  1824;  with  Brazil  in  1828;  with  Chili 
in  1832  ;  with  Guatemala  in  1849;  and  with  Peru  in 
185 1.  Some  of  these  treaties  have  now  expired, 
especially  those  with  England  and  France.  In  1797 
the  United  States  passed  a  law  to  prevent  citizens  of 
the  United  States  from  privateering  against  nations 
in  amity  with,  or  against  citizens  of  the  United 
States.     This  was  repealed  in  1818;  but  the  article 


384  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

with  regard  to  privateering  against  citizens  of  the 
United  States  was  re-enacted.  The  substance  of  the 
provisions  with  regard  to  privateering  against  friendly- 
nations  was,  however,  retained  in  other  words  :  for  any 
person  within  the  United  States  was  prohibited  from 
fitting  out  any  ship  or  vessel  to  cruise  or  commit  hos- 
tilities against  the  subjects,  citizens,  or  property  of 
any  power  or  state  with  whom  the  United  States  are 
at  peace. 

During  our  war  with  Mexico  there  was  great  ap- 
prehension lest  letters  of  marque  should  be  accepted 
by  the  subjects  of  neutral  states,  although  England 
and  France  expressly  prohibited  their  subjects  from 
accepting  them,  and  the  general  laws  of  most  other 
powers  were  to  the  same  effect.  President  Polk,  in 
his  message  of  December,  1846,  announced  that  he 
had  called  the  attention  of  the  Spanish* government 
to  the  provision  of  the  treaty  of  1795  on  this  subject, 
and  at  the  same  time  recommended  to  Congress  to 
provide  for  the  trial  and  punishment  as  pirates  of  any 
Spanish  subjects  who  should  be  found  guilty  of  pri- 
vateering against  the  United  States.  It  had  been 
rumored  that  the  United  States  would  hang  as 
pirates  all  foreigners  on  board  of  Mexican  privateers  ; 
and  the  British  minister  at  Washington,  although 
Great  Britain  had  forbid  its  subjects  to  engage  in  such 
enterprises,  expressed  to  our  Government  the  expecta- 
tion that  this  threat  would  not  be  put  in  execution 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  385 

against  any  British  subjects.  By  an  act  passed  March 
3,  1847,  it  was  declared  piracy  for  any  subject  or  citi- 
zen of  a  foreign  state  to  make  war  against  the  United 
States  or  cruise  against  their  vessels  or  property  con- 
trary to  the  provisions  of  treaties  existing  with  that 
state  of  which  they  were  subjects  and  citizens.  This 
was  certainly  a  great  extension  of  the  crime  of  piracy 
as  known  to  international  law. 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  Crimean  War  Austria  and 
Spain  issued  declarations  forbidding  their  subjects 
from  taking  letters  of  marque  from  any  foreign  power, 
and  forbidding  the  use  of  their  ports  to  privateers. 
Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway  followed  this  so  far 
as  to  prohibit  privateers  from  anchoring  in  their  ports. 
England  and  France,  by  a  declaration  made  on  March 
28,  1854,  stated  that  for  the  present  they  would  waive 
a  portion  of  their  belligerent  rights  ;  that  they  would 
waive  the  rights  of  seizing  enemy's  property,  laden  on 
board  of  neutral  vessels,  unless  contraband  of  war;  that 
they  would  not  claim  the  confiscation  of  neutral  prop- 
erty not  being  contraband  of  war  found  on  enemies' 
ships ;  and  being  desirous  to  lessen  as  much  as  pos- 
sible the  evils  of  war,  would  restrict  their  operations 
to  the  regularly  organized  forces  of  the  country,  and 
would  not  issue  letters  of  marque  for  the  commission- 
ing of  privateers.  Lord  Clarendon,  in  conversation 
with  Mr.  Buchanan,  our  minister  to  London,  spoke 
in  very  complimentary  terms  of  the  treaties  of  the 
25 


386  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

United  States  with  different  nations  with  regard  to 
letters  of  marque ;  and  while  he  did  not  propose  the 
conclusion  of  a  treaty  for  the  suppression  of  privateer- 
ing, expressed  a  strong  opinion  against  the  practice  as 
inconsistent  with  modern  civilization.  On  another 
occasion  he  spoke  in  high  terms  of  our  neutrality  law 
of  1818,  and  pronounced  it  superior  to  the  English, 
especially  with  regard  to  privateers.  Mr.  Buchanan 
replied  to  Lord  Clarendon  that 

**  It  did  not  seem  to  him  possible  under  existing  circumstances 
for  the  United  States  to  agree  to  the  suppression  of  privateer- 
ing, unless  the  naval  powers  of  the  world  would  go  one  step 
further  and  consent  that  war  against  private  property  should 
be  abolished  altogether  upon  the  ocean,  as  it  had  already  been 
upon  the  land.  There  was  really  nothing  different  in  princi- 
ple or  morality  between  the  act  of  a  regular  cruiser  and  that 
of  a  privateer  in  robbing  a  merchant  vessel  upon  the  ocean, 
and  confiscating  the  property  of  private  individuals  on  board, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  captor." 

Mr.  Marcy,  the  Secretary  of  State,  wrote  to  Mr. 
Buchanan  that  he  did  not  think  that  the  stipulations 
about  letters  of  marque  would  be  inserted  in  any  new 
treaties ;  not  that  the  Government  would  not  prohibit, 
as  far  as  possible,  its  own  citizens  from  accepting 
letters  of  marque  from  other  powers ;  but  in  case  it 
was  itself  engaged  in  war  it  did  not  wish  to  preclude 
itself  from  resorting  to  the  merchant  marine  of  the 
country. 

Mr.  Marcy,  in  replying  to  the  note  of  Mr.  Cramp- 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  38/ 

ton,  the  British  minister,  enclosing  the  declaration, 
expressed  the  satisfaction  of  the  United  States 

*'  That  the  principle  that  free  ships  make  free  goods,  which 
the  United  States  have  so  long  and  so  strenuously  contended 
for  as  a  neutral  right,  and  in  which  some  of  the  leading  powers 
of  Europe  have  concurred,  is  to  have  a  qualified  sanction  by 
the  practical  observance  of  it  in  the  present  war  by  both  Great 
Britain  and  France — two  of  the  most  powerful  nations  of  Eu- 
rope." 

This  satisfaction  **  Would  have  been  enhanced  if  the  rule  al- 
luded to  had  been  announced  as  one  which  would  be  observed 
not  only  in  the  present,  but  in  every  future  war  in  which  Great 
Britain  shall  be  a  party.  The  unconditional  sanction  of  this 
rule  by  the  British  and  French  governments,  together  with  the 
practical  observance  of  it  in  the  present  war,  would  cause  it 
henceforth  to  be  recognized  throughout  the  civilized  world  as 
a  general  principle  of  international  law.  This  Government, 
from  its  very  commencement,  has  labored  for  its  recognition 
as  a  neutral  right.  It  has  incorporated  it  in  many  of  its 
treaties  with  foreign  powers.  To  settle  the  principle  that 
free  ships  make  free  goods,  except  articles  contraband  of  war, 
and  to  prevent  it  from  being  called  again  in  question  from  any 
quarter,  or  under  any  circumstances,  the  United  States  are 
desirous  to  unite  with  other  powers  in  a  declaration  that  it 
shall  be  observed  by  each  hereafter  as  a  rule  of  international 
law."  * 

What  we  maintained  was  that  the  right  then  exist- 
ing under  international  law  should  not  be  waived 
from  time  to  time,  but  should  be  surrendered  alto- 
gether, and  we  were  unwilling  to  accept  anything  less. 

At  the  outbreak  of  the  war  Russia  had  extended 
*  Lawrence's  Wheaton,  p.  771,  note. 


388  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

certain  privileges  to  Turkish  vessels  in  Russian  ports ; 
but  as  these  had  not  been  reciprocated  Russia  in- 
sisted on  asserting  the  rights  of  war  to  their  whole 
extent  against  Turkish  vessels,  against  Turkish  goods, 
and  against  neutral  goods  on  Turkish  vessels.  When 
England  and  France  became  engaged  in  war,  Russia 
published  declarations  of  a  similar  nature  to  those 
published  by  those  powers,  declaring  that  enemy's 
goods  in  neutral  vessels  would  be  regarded  as  invio- 
lable, and  the  subjects  of  the  enemy  on  board  neutral 
vessels  would  not  be  molested.  Mr.  Marcy,  in  writ- 
ing to  Mr.  Seymour,  our  minister  to  St.  Petersburg, 
called  attention  to  what  had  been  done  by  Great 
Britain  and  France  with  regard  to  free  ships  making 
free  goods,  and  spoke  of  the  efforts  of  the  United 
States  in  this  direction,  adding, 

"  This  seems  to  be  a  most  favorable  time  for  such  a  salutary 
change.  From  the  earliest  period  of  this  Government  it  has 
made  strenuous  efforts  to  have  the  rule  that  free  ships  make 
free  goods,  except  contraband  articles,  adopted  as  a  principle 
of  international  law  ;  but  Great  Britain  insisted  on  a  different 
rule.  These  efforts,  consequently,  proved  unavailing ;  and 
now  it  cannot  be  recognized,  and  a  strict  observance  of  it  se- 
cured without  a  conventional  regulation  among  the  maritime 
powers.  This  Government  is  desirous  to  have  all  nations  agree 
in  a  declaration  that  this  rule  shall  hereafter  be  observed  by 
them  respectively,  when  they  shall  happen  to  be  involved  in 
any  war,  and  that  as  neutrals  they  will  insist  upon  it  as  a  neu- 
tral right."  * 

*  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  103,  33d  Congress,  ist  Session. 


jveutral  rights,  389 

Our  ideas  were  so  well  received  by  Russia  at  that 
time  that  on  July  22,  1854,  a  treaty  was  concluded  at 
Washington  between  the  United  States  and  Russia 
by  which 

*'  The  two  high  contracting  parties  recognized,  as  permanent 
and  immutable,  the  following  principles,  to  wit :  i.  That  free 
ships  make  free  goods — that  is  to  say,  that  the  effects  or  goods 
belonging  to  subjects  or  citizens  of  a  power  or  state  at  war  are 
free  from  capture  and  confiscation  when  found  on  board  of 
neutral  vessels,  with  the  exception  of  articles  contraband  of 
war.  2.  That  the  property  of  neutrals  on  board  an  enemy's 
vessel  is  not  subject  to  confiscation,  unless  the  same  be  con- 
traband of  war.  They  engage  to  apply  these  principles  to  the 
commerce  and  navigation  of  all  such  states  as  shall  consent  to 
adopt  them,  on  their  part,  as  permanent  and  immutable." 

Similar  treaties  were  made  with  the  Two  Sicilies 
on  January  13,  1855,  and  with  Peru  on  July  26^  1856. 

In  reporting  the  treaty  with  Russia  to  Congress, 
in  his  annual  message  in  December,  1854,  President 
Pierce  said  : 

''  The  King  of  Prussia  entirely  approves  of  the  project  of  a 
treaty  to  the  same  effect,  submitted  to  him,  but  proposes  an 
additional  article  providing  for  the  renunciation  of  privateer- 
ing. Such  an  article,  for  most  obvious  reasons,  is  much  de- 
sired from  nations  havmg  naval  establishments  large  in  pro- 
portion to  their  foreign  commerce.  If  it  were  adopted  as  an 
international  rule,  the  commerce  of  a  nation  having  compara- 
tively a  small  naval  force  would  be  very  much  at  the  mercy 
of  its  enemy  in  case  of  war  with  a  power  of  decided  naval 
superiority.     The  bare  statement  of  the  condition  in  which 


39^  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the  United  States  would  be  placed  after  having  surrendered 
the  right  to  resort  to  privateers  in  the  event  of  war  with  a  bel- 
ligerent of  naval  supremacy,  will  show  that  this  Government 
could  never  listen  to  such  a  proposition.  The  navy  of  the  first 
maritime  power  in  Europe  is  at  least  ten  times  as  large  as  that 
of  the  United  States.  The  foreign  commerce  of  the  nations  is 
nearly  equal,  and  about  equally  exposed  to  hostile  depreda- 
tions. In  war  between  that  power  and  the  United  States, 
without  resort,  on  our  part,  to  our  mercantile  marine,  the 
means  of  our  enemy  to  inflict  injury  upon  our  commerce 
would  be  tenfold  greater  than  ours  to  retaliate.  .  .  .  The 
proposal  to  surrender  the  right  to  employ  privateers  is  pro- 
fessedly founded  upon  the  principle  that  private  property  of 
unoffending  non-combatants,  though  enemies,  should  be  ex- 
empt from  the  ravages  of  war  ;  but  the  proposed  surrender 
goes  little  way  in  carrying  out  that  principle,  which  equally 
requires  that  such  private  property  should  not  be  seized  or 
molested  by  national  ships  of  war.  Should  the  leading  powers 
of  Europe  concur  in  proposing,  as  a  rule  of  international  law, 
to  exempt  private  property  upon  the  ocean  from  seizure  by 
public  armed  cruisers,  as  well  as  by  privateers,  the  United 
States  will  readily  meet  them  upon  that  broad  ground." 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  New  York,  on  April 
6,  1854,  passed  a  series  of  resolutions  which,  though 
they  differed  somewhat  from  the  policy  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, yet  aided  in  strengthening  its  hands.  They 
were  in  substance  that  the  employment  of  privateers 
was  contrary  to  all  sound  principles  of  morality, 
justice,  and  humanity  ;  that  the  ravages  caused  only 
the  ruin  of  private  persons,  without  any  advantage  to 
the  nation ;    that    the    U|iited    States   ought   to   co- 


NEUTRAL  RIGHTS,  39 1 

Operate  with  the  efforts  of  European  powers  for  the 
abolition  of  privateering;  and  that  the  example  set 
in  the  principles  proclaimed  in  the  treaty  of  the 
United  States  with  Prussia  of  1785  should  be  sup- 
ported by  the  Chamber. 

At  the  Congress  of  Paris  in  1856,  subsequently  to 
the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  which  ended  the  Crimean 
War,  a  declaration  of  principles  was  signed  on  April 
1 6th,  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  all  the  powers  repre- 
sented there,  which  contained  four  articles  : 

**  First,  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 

"  Second,  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemies'  goods,  with  the 
exception  of  contraband  of  war. 

"  Third,  Neutral  goods,  except  of  contraband  of  war,  are 
not  liable  to  capture  under  an  enemy's  flag. 

*'  Fourth,  Blockades,  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective — that 
is  to  say,  maintained  by  a  force  really  sufficient  to  prevent  ac- 
cess to  the  coast  of  the  enemy." 

The  adherence  of  other  powers  was  requested  to 
these  principles.  The  Belgian  government  proposed, 
in  order  to  give  these  doctrines  greater  force  and  so- 
lidity, that  they  should  be  put  in  the  form  of  a  treaty 
or  convention ;  but  this  was  opposed  by  the  English 
government,  which  feared  difficulties  in  Parliament. 
These  difficulties  were  not  slow  in  coming,  and  they 
will  be  spoken  of  presently.  The  adherence,  however, 
was  given  in  full  by  all  the  states  that  now  compose 
the  German  empire,  although  this  was,  in  general,  a 


392  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

mere  formality,  as  most  of  these  states  had  no  sea- 
ports ;  by  Belgium,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Chili,  the  Argen- 
tine Confederation,  Denmark,  Ecuador,  the  Italian 
states,  Greece,  Guatemala,  Hayti,  New  Grenada,  the 
Netherlands,  Peru,  Portugal,  Salvador,  Sweden  and 
Norway,  Switzerland,  and  Uruguay.  Spain  and  Mex- 
ico, wishing  to  preserve  the  right  of  privateering,  re- 
fused to  adhere  to  the  first  article ;  but  declared  their 
willingness  to  accept  the  three  others.  The  action 
of  the  United  States  gave  rise  to  much  comment. 

It  had  been  inserted  in  the  protocol  of  the  proceed- 
ings, although  not  in  the  declaration  itself,  that  this 

"  Declaration  was  indivisible,  and  that  the  powers  which  signed 
it,  or  should  accede  to  it,  could  not  thereafter  enter  into  any 
agreement  in  regard  to  the  application  of  the  maritime  law  in 
time  of  war,  which  did  not  rest  upon  the  four  principles  which 
are  the  object  of  the  declaration." 

It  was  admitted,  however,  on  the  motion  of  the 
Russian  plenipotentiaries,  that  this  provision  could 
not  have  any  retroactive  power  or  invalidate  any  ex- 
isting convention,  and  it  was  also  conceded  "  that  it 
would  not  be  obligatory  on  the  signers  of  the  declara- 
tion to  maintain  the  principle  of  the  abolition  of 
privateering  against  those  powers  which  did  not  ac- 
cede to  it." 

On  July  14,  1856,  Mr.  Marcy  sent  a  circular  to  the 
American  ministers  abroad  informing  them  that  the 
declaration  of  Paris  had  been  submitted  to  our  Gov- 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  393 

ernment  for  adoption;  and  on  July  28,  1856,  he  made 
a  formal  reply  to  the  French  minister,  Count  Sartiges, 
objecting  to  the  indivisibility  of  the  four  articles,  for 
two  of  which  the  United  States  had  for  a  long  time 
been  in  negotiation.  He  thought  that  the  fourth 
article  on  blockade  did  not  relieve  the  subject  from 
the  difficulty  in  determining  what  fulfilled  the  con- 
ditions of  the  definition.  As  to  the  first  article,  with 
regard  to  privateering,  Mr.  Marcy  maintained  that  the 
right  to  resort  to  privateers  is  as  incontestable  as  any 
other  right  appertaining  to  belligerents ;  and  reasoned 
that  the  effect  of  the  declaration  would  be  to  increase 
the  maritime  preponderance  of  Great  Britain  and 
France,  without  even  benefiting  the  general  cause  of 
civilization ;  while  if  public  ships  retained  the  right  of 
capturing  private  property,  the  United  States,  which 
had  at  that  time  a  large  mercantile  marine  and  a  com- 
paratively small  navy,  would  be  deprived  of  all  means 
of  retaliation.     Mr.  Marcy  said  : 

**  A  predominant  power  on  the  ocean  is  still  more  menacing 
to  the  well-being  of  other  nations  than  a  predominant  power 
on  land.  For  that  reason  all  nations  are  equally  interested  in 
rejecting  a  measure  tending  to  favor  the  permanent  establish- 
ment of  such  a  domination,  whether  such  a  domination  should 
belong  to  one  power  or  to  several.  The  lesses  which  would 
probably  be  the  result  of  abandoning  the  domination  of  the 
sea  either  to  one  nation  owning  a  powerful  navy,  or  to  several, 
are,  above  all,  due  to  the  custom  of  submitting  private  property 
on  the  ocean  to  capture  by  the  belligerent  powers.     Justice 


394  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

and  humanity  demand  that  this  custom  be  abandoned,  and 
that  the  rule  in  regard  to  property  on  land  be  extended  to  that 
on  the  sea.  The  President  proposes,  therefore,  to  add  to  the 
first  proposition  contained  in  the  declaration  of  the  Congress 
of  Paris  the  following  words  :  *  And  that  the  private  property  of 
the  subjects  and  citizens  of  a  belligerent  on  the  high  seas  shall 
be  exempted  from  seizure  by  public  armed  vessels  of  the  other 
belligerent,  except  it  be  contraband.' " 

Theoretical  writers  on  international  law  have  gener- 
ally blamed  the  conduct  of  our  Government  in  thus 
apparently  rejecting  principles  which  it  was  one  of 
the  first  to  propose,  and  have  laid  great  stress  on  the 
wrongfulness  and  abuses  of  privateering.  It  is,  how- 
ever, difficult  to  see  how,  except  in  the  general  want 
of  discipline  and  in  the  predatory  habits  which  it  en- 
courages, privateering  is  worse  than  the  use  of  public 
ships  for  the  capture  of  private  property.  In  fact, 
those  nations  who  have  given  up  privateering  have 
considered  themselves  perfectly  justified  in  converting 
a  merchant  vessel  into  a  ship  of  the  navy  by  the  sim- 
ple process  of'  giving  her  a  regular  commission  and 
putting  on  board  a  naval  officer  as  captain.  We  al- 
most forget  now  that,  even  so  lately  as  1856,  we  had 
one  of  the  largest  commercial  ^avies  of  the  world, 
and  a  foreign  trade  which  it  was  necessary  to  protect 
at  all  hazards.  The  statesmen  who  then  had  the  di- 
rection of  our  Government  saw  the  exigencies  of  the 
situation  far  more  clearly  than  the  writers  on  interna- 
tional law.     Events,  as  will  be  seen,  have  shown  that 


NEUTRAL  RIGHTS.  395 

they  were  justified  in  their  course,  and  that  our  refusal 
to  accept  the  declaration  of  Paris  has  brought  the 
world  nearer  to  the  principles  which  we  proposed, 
which  became  known  as  the  "  Marcy  amendment 
for  the  abolition  of  war  against  private  property  on 
the  seas." 

There  was  another  difficulty,  which  governments 
gradually  saw,  that  the  President  had  no  constitu- 
tional power  to  accept  the  declaration  of  Paris  unless 
it  were  put  into  the  form  of  a  treaty  approved  by 
the  Senate,  and  duly  ratified.  Our  courts,  before 
whom  all  prize  cases  would  come,  would  have  refused 
to  accept  as  a  rule  of  law  any  declaration  made  by 
the  President  in  another  form,  unless  there  were  also 
a  law  or  a  treaty  to  that  effect. 

Among  the  minor  states  of  Europe  there  was  com- 
plete unanimity  and  a  general  readiness  to  accept  our 
amendment  to  the  rules ;  but  before  giving  a  formal 
reply  they  naturally  waited  the  action  of  the  great 
powers  who  had  signed  the  declaration.  Russia  im- 
mediately consented.  Prince  Gortchakof  immedi- 
ately instructed  Baron  Brunnow  on  the  subject  of 
Mr.  Marcy 's  note, 

*'  In  which  the  American  proposition  is  developed  in  that  cau- 
tious and  lucid  manner  which  compels  conversion.  The  Sec- 
retary of  State  does  not  argue  the  exclusive  interests  of  the 
United  States  ;  his  plea  is  put  for  the  whole  of  mankind.  It 
grows  out  of  a  generous  thought,  the  embodiment  of  which 
rests  upon  arguments  which  admit  of  no  reply.     The  attention 


39^  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

of  the  Emperor  has  in  an  eminent  degree  been  enlisted  by  the 
overtures  of  the  American  cabinet.  In  his  view  of  the  ques- 
tion they  deserve  to  be  taken  into  serious  consideration  by  the 
powers  which  signed  the  treaty  of  Paris.  They  would  honor 
themselves  should  they,  by  a  resolution  taken  in  common,  and 
proclaimed  to  the  world,  apply  to  private  property  on  the  seas 
the  principle  of  inviolability  which  they  have  ever  professed  for 
it  on  land.  They  would  crown  the  work  of  pacification  which 
has  called  them  together,  and  give  it  an  additional  grant  of 
permanence." 

Baron  Brunnow  was  instructed  to  say  to  the  French 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  "  that  should  the  Amer- 
ican proposition  become  a  subject  of  common  deliber- 
ation among  the  powers  it  would  receive  a  most  deci- 
sive support  "  from  Russia.  "  You  are  even  author- 
ized to  declare  that  our  August  Master  would  take 
the  initiative  of  this  question."  *  Count  Walewski, 
the  French  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  informed  our 
Government  that  France  would  agree  to  the  declara- 
tion as  modified  by  us,  although  a  formal  assent  was 
deferred  in  order  to  consult  the  other  parties  to  the 
treaty.  Prussia,  in  May,  1857,  also  accepted  Mr. 
Marcy's  amendment,  and  said  that  "  if  this  proposition 
should  become  the  subject  of  a  collective  deliberation, 
it  can  rely  on  the  most  marked  support  of  Prussia, 
which  earnestly  desires  that  other  states  will  unite  in 
a  determination,  the  benefits  of  which  will  apply  to 
all  nations."     Count  Cavour  gave  the  amendment  his 

*  Lawrence's  Wheaton,  p.  640,  note. 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS,  39/ 

cordial  approval,  and  regarded  it  as  a  very  just  and 
logical  deduction  from  the  original  ideas  of  the  Paris 
Congress,  and  said  that  if  the  Congress  should  reas- 
semble, he  would  there  be  a  warm  advocate  for  it. 

The  only  decided  opposition  to  the  American  pro- 
posal came  from  England.  Lord  Palmerston  talked 
both  ways  at  different  times.  The  policy  of  these 
rules  was  several  times  discussed  in  Parliament,  and 
in  a  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  May  22,  1856, 
Lord  Clarendon  being  attacked  for  having  subscribed 
to  the  principle  that  free  ships  make  free  goods,  de- 
fended himself  on  the  ground  that  the  declaration 
must  be  taken  as  a  whole  or  not  at  all,  and  that  if 
the  'United  States  accepted  it,  they  must  agree  to 
the  abandonment  of  privateering,  which  was  to  Eng- 
land more  than  an  equivalent  for  a  claim  {i.e,^  taking 
enemy's  property  in  neutral  vessels)  which  she  could 
not  maintain  ;  that  privateering  must  become  more 
important  than  heretofore,  as  commerce  carried  on 
in  sailing  vessels  would  be  absolutely  at  the  mercy  of 
a  privateer  moved  by  steam,  however  small.  The 
truth  of  this  last  remark  of  Lord  Clarendon  was 
abundantly  proved  during  our  civil  war.  Lord  Har- 
rowby  said  that  England  had  suffered  more  injury 
from  privateering  than  she  could  inflict,  and  that  the 
United  States  would  derive  no  benefit  from  the 
treaty  if  they  did  not  agree  to  abandon  privateering.* 
*  Lawrence's  Wheaton,  pp.  637,  638,  note. 


398  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

However,  before  the  English  government  had 
made  any  formal  reply  to  our  proposition,  President 
Buchanan  had  succeeded  President  Pierce,  and  Mr. 
Marcy  had  been  replaced  by  General  Cass.  Instruc- 
tions were  given  to  our  ministers  to  suspend  negotia- 
tions, and  the  Marcy  amendment  was  practically 
withdrawn.  The  reasons  which  prompted  our  Gov- 
ernment to  this  course  are  difficult  to  understand  ; 
but  General  Cass,  in  a  circular  of  June  27,  1859, 
called  the  attention  of  European  governments  to  the 
provisions  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  which  affected 
enemy's  property  on  board  of  neutral  vessels,  and  in- 
sisted that  the  United  States  should  have  the  bene- 
fit of  this  rule  whether  they  had  acceded  to  the  decla- 
ration or  not.  The  Italian  war  had  at  that  time  just 
broken  out.  England,  it  is  understood,  still  main- 
tains that,  not  being  a  party  to  the  declaration,  we 
have  no  right  to  the  advantages  of  it  in  any  war  in 
which  she  should  be  a  party  and  we  should  be  neu- 
trals. 

The  proposition,  which  we  had  for  the  moment 
abandoned,  was  revived  in  1858  by  Brazil,  which  in 
a  note  to  the  French  minister  at  Rio  de  Janeiro, 
dated  March  18,  1858,  proposed  that  "all  private 
property,  without  exception,  of  merchant  vessels, 
should  be  placed  under  the  protection  of  maritime 
law,  and  be  free  from  the  attacks  of  cruisers  of  war." 

At  the  beginning  of  our  civil  war,  there  being  ap- 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  399 

prehension  that  the  Confederate  States  might  issue 
letters  of  marque,  Mr.  Seward  thought  that,  if  we 
should  then  accept  the  declaration  of  Paris,  we  could 
induce  foreign  governments  to  treat  privateers  coming 
from  the  Confederate  States  as  pirates.  He  there- 
fore, on  April  24,  1861,  addressed  a  circular  on  the 
subject  to  our  ministers  abroad,  in  which,  while  ex- 
pressing his  preference  for  the  Marcy  amendment,  he 
said : 

"  Prudence  and  humanity  combine  in  persuading  the  Presi- 
dent, under  the  circumstances,  that  it  is  wise  to  secure  the 
lesser  good  offered  by  the  Paris  Congress,  without  waiting  in- 
definitely in  hope  to  obtain  the  great  one  offered  to  the  mari- 
time nations  by  the  President  of  the  United  States.* 

Both  England  and  France  refused  to  accept  the  re- 
nunciation of  privateering  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  if  it  were  coupled  with  the  condition  that  it 
should  be  enforced  on  the  Confederate  States,  holding 
that  such  action  on  their  part  would  be  a  breach  of 
neutrality  and  a  participation  in  the  civil  disturbances 
of  this  country.  There  was,  however,  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  those  governments  to  waive  the  privateer- 
ing clause  of  the  declaration,  notwithstanding  the  in- 
divisibility of  the  articles  previously  insisted  upon, 
provided  that  the  United  States  would  accept  the 
other  three.  Mr.  Seward  insisted  that  the  tender  of 
our    adhesion    to    the   declaration    was    "  pure    and 

*  Diplomatic  Corresppndence,  1861.    . 


400  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

simple,"  and  instructed  Mr.  Dayton  to  renew  it  in  the 
form  originally  prescribed.  The  result  was  that  the 
negotiations  failed.  Subsequently,  when,  on  account 
of  the  Trent  affair,  it  was  feared  that  there  would 
be  war  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain, 
Lord  Lyons  was  instructed  to  say  that  Great  Britain 
was  willing  to  abolish  privateering  as  between  the 
two  nations,  if  the  United  States  would  make  the 
same  engagement. 

Meanwhile  the  principle  of  the  immunity  of  private 
property  at  sea  made  headway  in  Europe.  During 
the  Italian  war  of  1859,  all  parties  being  signers  of  the 
treaty  of  Paris,  the  rules  were  strictly  maintained  ;  but 
in  the  treaty  of  Zurich,  November  10,  1859,  it  was 
stipulated  that,  as  an  extension  of  the  previous  rules, 
Austrian  vessels  which  had  been  captured  and  not  yet 
condemned  would  be  restored.  Similar  proceedings 
took  place  after  the  Mexican  war,  by  a  decree  of  the 
Emperor  Napoleon  on  March  29,  1865.  At  the  out- 
break of  the  Danish  war,  in  1864,  first  Denmark  and 
then  Prussia  and  Austria,  applied  the  old  laws  about 
prizes.  But  in  the  treaty  Denmark  agreed  to  restore 
the  merchant  ships  captured,  or  pay  for  them.  Thus, 
as  Bluntschli  says,  "  this  treaty  implicitly  recognized 
the  doctrine  that,  even  in  maritime  war,  private  prop- 
erty ought  to  be  respected."  At  the  beginning  of  the 
war  of  1866  the  principles  of  Paris  were  carried  still 
further,  Austria,   Prussia,  and  Italy  all  agreeing  not 


NEUTRAL  RIGHTS.  4OI 

only  to  give  a  special  protection  to  neutral  vessels, 
but  to  exempt  from  capture  even  enemy's  vessels 
which  should  not  be  carrying  contraband  of  war,  or 
trying  to  violate  the  blockade.  At  various  times 
chambers  of  commerce  of  maritime  cities — English, 
German,  French,  Belgian,  and  Danish — had  passed 
resolutions  in  favor  of  the  immunity  of  private  prop- 
erty;  and  on  April  18,  1868,  on  the  proposition  of 
Dr.  Aegidi,  the  Federal  Diet  of  North  Germany 
passed  almost  unanimously  the  following  resolution  : 

*'  The  Federal  Chancellor  is  invited  to  profit  by  the  friendly 
relations  at  present  maintained  with  foreign  powers  to  begin 
negotiation^  for  maintaining,  by  means  of  treaties,  the  freedom 
of  private  property  on  the  seas  in  time  of  war,  and  make  it  the 
recognized  principle  of  international  law." 

The  Federal  Council  accepted  the  vote  of  the  Diet, 
and  invited  the  Chanceller  to  act  according  to  the 
resolution  which  had  been  adopted.  In  consequence, 
according  to  the  ProvinziaVsche  Correspondenz  of 
Berlin,  of  August  26,  1869,  the  German  minister  at 
Washington  was  instructed  to  begin  negotiations  on 
this  subject  with  the  United  States. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  war  between  Germany  and 
France,  in  1870,  M.  Gamier- Pages,  deputy  of  Paris, 
proposed,  in  the  French  legislature,  that  the  capture 
of  hostile  commercial  vessels  should  be  abolished,  as 
well  as  the  blockade  or  the  bombardment  of  com- 
mercial and  open  towns,  the  right  of  attack  remain- 
26 


402  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ing  limited  only  to  military  ports  and  towns.  This 
law  was,  however,  only  to  be  applied  in  cases  of  re- 
ciprocity. Although  urgency  was  then  granted  to 
this  proposition,  the  sudden  revolution  prevented  its 
consideration.  The  Germans,  on  their  side,  by  a  royal 
ordinance  of  July  i8,  1870,  declared  that  French  com- 
mercial ships  would  not  be  captured  unless  under  the 
conditions  in  which  neutral  ships  might  be  captured. 
There  was  no  question  about  reciprocity.  Selfish 
reasons,  that  is,  a  large  commercial  marine,  a  small 
navy,  and  an  undefended  coast  may  have  entered 
into  this ;  but  the  declaration  was  certainly  an  ad- 
vance in  international  law.  France  did  pot  recipro- 
cate in  exempting  German  cornmercial  ships  from 
capture,  and  on  January  12,  1871,  information  was 
given  to  neutral  countries  that  this  declaration  would 
be  recalled  after  four  weeks'  delay,  in  order  to  protect 
neutral  property  which  might  in  consequence  of  the 
declaration  have  been  placed  on  French  ships.  Hos- 
tilities had  ceased,  however,  before  the  four  weeks 
had  expired ;  and  the  throat  of  reprisals  was  there- 
fore without  result. 

A  sufficient  time  having  elapsed  after  our  civil  war 
for  us  to  forget  the  disturbance  which  it  had  caused 
us  in  every  way,  we  again  took  up  this  principle, 
which  we  had  been  ready  to  relax  in  a  moment  of 
need.  By  a  treaty  of  commerce  concluded  with  Italy 
on   February  26,  1 871,  we  stipulated   for  all  that  we 


NEUTRAL   RIGHTS.  403 

had  ever  maintained.  By  Article  12  it  was  agreed 
that  private  property  should  be  exempt  from  capture 
or  seizure  on  the  high  seas,  or  elsewhere,  by  the  armed 
vessels  or  by  the  military  forces  of  either  party,  ex- 
cepting, of  course,  contraband  of  war,  and  vessels  at- 
tempting to  enter  blockaded  ports.  By  Articles  13 
and  14  blockades  were  more  exactly  defined,  and  the 
category  of  contraband  of  war  was  limited  to  arms  and 
munitions  by  Article  15.  In  Article  16  it  was  recog- 
nized that  citizens  of  either  country  may  trade  with 
the  enemies  of  the  other ;  that  free  ships  make  free 
goods,  contraband  excepted,  but  that  this  stipulation 
shall  be  applied  only  to  those  powers  who  recognize 
the  principle.  Stricter  regulations  were  also  made 
for  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  search. 


VIII. 
THE    FISHERIES. 

Treaty  of  1783. — Treaty  of  Ghent. — Our  Contention. — Treaty 
of  1818. — Difficulties,  Complaints,  and  Seizures. — Diplo- 
matic Correspondence. — Treaty  of  1854. — Its  Abrogation. 
— New  Difficulties. — Treaty  of  1871. — The  Halifax  Award. 
— Abrogation  of  Treaty. — Temporary  Prolongation  of 
Privileges. — Present  State  of  the  Question. 

The  question  of  the  fisheries  on  the  coasts  of  British 
North  America  is  one  which  has  occupied  our  Gov- 
ernment since  its  foundation,  and  which,  though  sev- 
eral times  settled  by  temporary  arrangement,  has  now 
reached  a  point,  through  the  lapse  of  these  arrange- 
ments and  the  abrogation  of  treaties,  where  it  is  again 
under  the  actual  consideration  of  our  Government. 

By  Article  3  of  the  treaty  of  September  3,  1783, 
which  recognized  the  independence  of  the  United 
States, 

"  It  is  agreed  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  shall  con- 
tinue to  enjoy  unmolested  the  right  to  take  fish  of  every  kind 
on  the  Grand  Bank  and  on  all  the  other  banks  of  Newfound- 
land, also  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  at  all  places  in  the 
sea  where  the  inhabitants  of  both  countries  used  at  any  time 
heretofore  to  fish  ;  and  also  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States  shall  have  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every  kind  on  such  part 


407 
THE  FISHERIES.  ^   * 

of  the  coasts  of  Newfoundland  as  British  fishermen  shall  choose, 
but  not  to  dry^or  cure  the  same  on  that  island  ;  and  also  on  the 
coasts,  bays,  and  creeks,  and  all  other  of  his  British  Majesty's 
dominions  in  America  ;  and  that  the  American  fishermen  shall 
have  liberty  to  dry  and  cure  fish  in  any  of  the  unsettled  bays, 
harbors,  and  creeks  of  Noya  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and 
Labrador,  as  long  as  the  same  shall  remain  unsettled  ;  but  as 
soon  as  the  same,  or  either  of  them,  shall  be  settled,  it  shall  not 
be  lawful  for  said  fishermen  to  dry  or  cure  fish  at  such  settle- 
ment without  a  previous  agreement  for  that  purpose  with  the 
inhabitants,  proprietors,  or  possessors  of  the  ground." 

In  the  preceding  negotiations  an  effort  was  made  to 
induce  the  American  commissioners  to  give  up  the 
fishery  rights.  John  Adams  said,  "  I  will  never  put 
my  hand  to  any  article  without  satisfaction  about  the 
fisheries,"  and  the  British  negotiators  yielded. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  right  to  take  fish  on  the 
banks,  which  is  a  deep-sea  or  off-shore  fishery,  far  away 
from  any  territorial  jurisdiction,  was  recognized  as  a 
right  inherent  and  belonging  to  the  inhabitants  of  the 
United  States,  as  indeed  to  any  other  people.  The 
right  to  take  fish  in  the  deep  waters  of  the  Gulf  of 
St.  Lawrence  was  also  recognized,  apart  from  any 
claims  to  territorial  jurisdiction  over  that  Gulf  by 
drawing  a  line  from  headland  to  headland.  We 
claimed  that  the  liberty  which  was  secured  to  the  in- 
habitants of  the  United  States  to  take  fish  on  the 
coasts  of  Newfoundland,  under  the  limitation  of  not 
drying  or  curing  the  same  on  that  island,  and  also  on 


AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the  other  coasts,  bays,  and  creeks,  together  with  the 
limited  rights  of  drying  or  curing  fish  on  the  coasts  of 
Nova  Scotia,  Magdalen  Islands,  and  Labrador,  were 
not  created  or  conferred  by  that  treaty,  but  were  sim- 
ply recognized  by  it  as  already  existing.  They  had 
been  enjoyed  before  the  Revolution  by  the  Americans 
in  common  with  other  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  and 
had,  indeed,  been  conquered,  from  the  French  chiefly, 
through  the  valor  and  the  sacrifices  of  the  colonies  of 
New  England  and  New  York.  The  treaty  was  there- 
fore considered  analogous  to  a  deed  of  partition.  It 
defined  the  boundaries  between  the  two  countries  and 
all  the  rights  and  privileges  belonging  to  them.  We 
insisted  that  the  article  respecting  fisheries  was  there- 
fore to  be  regarded  as  identical  with  the  possession 
of  land  or  the  demarcation  of  boundary.  \  We  also 
claimed  that  the  treaty  being  one  that  recognized  in- 
dependence, conceded  territory,  and  defined  bound- 
aries, belonged  to  that  class  which  is  permanent  in  its 
nature  and  is  not  affected  by  subsequent  suspension 
of  friendly  relations.) 

The  English,  however,  insisted  that  this  treaty  was 
not  a  unity  ;  that  while  some  of  its  provisions  were 
permanent,  other  stipulations  were  temporary  and 
could  be  abrogated,  and  that,  in  factAhey  were  abro- 
gated by  the  war  of  1812)  that  the  very  difference  of 
the  language  used  showed  that  while  the  rights  of 
deep-sea  fishing  were  permanent,  the  liberties  of  fish- 


THE   FISHERIES.  40^ 

ing  were  created  and  conferred  by  that  treaty,  and  had 
therefore  been  taken  away  by  the  war.  These  were 
the  two  opposite  views  of  the  respective  governments 
at  the  conferences  which  ended  in  the  treaty  of  Ghent 
of  1 8 14.  At  the  very  beginning  the  British  commis- 
sioners stated  that  these  fishing  privileges  would  not 
be  renewed  without  some  equivalent.  The  American 
commissioners,  who  had  no  special  instructions  on 
this  subject,  insisted  that  these  rights  and  privileges 
still  existed  in  spite  of  the  war,  and  proposed  either 
to  incorporate  into  the  treaty  articles  concerning  the 
American  right  to  fish  in  British  waters  and  the  Brit- 
ish right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi,  just  as  they  had 
existed  in  the  treaty  of  1783,  or  else  to  omit  them  en- 
tirely. This  latter  proposition  was  accepted  by  the 
British  commissioners,  and  for  that  reason  theQtreaty 
of  Ghent  is  entirely  silent  as  to  the  fishery  question.*) 
Professor  John  Norton  Pomeroy,  in  criticising  in  1871 
the  arguments  of  the  American  commissioners, 
thinks  that  they  did  not  make  the  best  of  their  case. 
He  agrees  with  the  British  claim  that  these  liberties 
of  fishing  were  not  in  the  nature  of  demarcation  of 
boundaries  or  their  appurtenances,  but  insists  that 
they  were  in  the  nature  of  a  servitude,  and  of  a  per- 
manent servitude.     He  says : 

*  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  read  the  pamphlet 
of  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams,  called  the  Duplicate  Letters,  pub- 
lished in  1822. 


408  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

"  The  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  1783  is  in  the  nature  of  an 
executed  grant.  It  created  and  conferred  at  one  blow  rights 
of  property  perfect  in  their  nature,  and  as  permanent  as  the 
dominion  over  the  national  soil.  These  rights  are  held  by  the 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States,  and  are  to  be  exercised  in 
British  territorial  waters.  Unaffected  by  the  war  of  18 12,  they 
still  exist  in  full  force  and  vigor."  * 

Theoretically  Mr.  Pomeroy's  doctrine  may  be  correct ; 
but  unfortunately  it  was  never  put  forward  or  insisted 
upon  by  our  Government. 

In  consequence  of  conflicts  arising  between  our 
fishermen  and  the  British  authorities,  our  point  of 
view  was  very  strongly  maintained  by  Mr.  Adams  in 
his  correspondence  with  the  British  Foreign  Office, 
and  finally,  on  October  20,  1818,  Mr.  Rush,  then  our 
minister  at  London,  assisted  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  suc- 
ceeded in  signing  a  treaty,  which  among  other  things 
settled  our  rights  and  privileges  by  the  first  article,  as 
follows  : 

*'  Whereas  differences  have  arisen  respecting  the  liberty 
claimed  by  the  United  States  for  the  inhabitants  thereof  to 
take,  dry,  and  cure  fish  on  certain  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and 
creeks  of  his  Britannic  Majesty's  dominions  in  America,  it  is 
agreed  between  the  high  contracting  parties  that  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  said  United  States  shall  have  foxfiyer,  in  common 
with  the  subjects  of  his  Britannic  Majesty,  the  liberty  of  tak- 
ing fish  of  any  kind  on  that  part  of  the  southern  coast  of  New- 
foundland which  extends  from  Cape  Ray  to  the  Rameau 
Islands  ;  on  the  western  and  northern  coasts  of  Newfoundland 

*  American  Law  Review,  v.,  p.  426. 


THE  FISHERIES.  409 

from  the  said  Cape  Ray  to  the  Ouirpon  Islands  ;  on  the  shores 
of  the  Magdalen  Islands,  and  also  on*  the  coasts,  bays,  har- 
bors, and  creeks  from  Mont  Joly,  on  the  southern  coast  of 
Labrador,  to  and  through  the  straits  of  Belle  Isle,  and  thence 
northwardly  indefinitely  along  the  coast.  And  that  the  Amer- 
ican fishermen  shall  have  liberty  forever  to  dry  and  cure  fish 
in  any  of  the  un^ttled  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  in  the  southern 
part  of  Newfoundland  herein-before  described,  and  of  the 
coasts  of  Labrador ;  but  as  soon  as  the  same,  or  any  portion 
thereof,  shall  be  settled,  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  said  fishermen 
to  dry  or  cure  fish  at  such  portion,  so  settled,  without  previous 
agreement  for  such  purpose  with  the  inhabitants,  proprietors, 
or  possessors  of  the  ground./  And  the  United  States  hereby 
renounces  forever  any  liberty  heretofore  enjoyed  claimed  by 
the  inhabitants  thereof  to  take,  dry,  or  cure  fish  on  or  within 
three  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  har- 
bors of  his  Britannic  Majesty's  dominions  in  America  not  in- 
cluded in  the  above-mentioned  limits.y  Provided,  however. 
That  the  American  fishermen  shall  be  permitted  to  enter  such 
bays  or  harbors  for  the  purpose  of  shelter,  of  repairing  damages 
therein,  of  purchasing  wood,  and  obtaining  water,  and  for 
no  other  purpose  whatever.  But  they  shall  be  under  such 
restrictions  as  shall  be  necessary  to  prevent  their  taking,  dry- 
ing, or  curing  fish  therein,  or  in  any  other  manner  whatever 
abusing  the  privileges  hereby  secured  to  them." 

The  American  plenipotentiaries  evidently  labored 
to  obtain  as  extensive  a  district  of  territory  as  possible 
for  in-shore  fishing,  and  were  willing  to  give  up  privi- 
leges, then  apparently  of  small  amount,  but  now 
much  more  important,  than  of  using  other  bays  and 
harbors  for  shelter  and  kindred  purposes.  For  that 
reason  they  acquiesced  in  omitting  the  word  "  bait "  in 


410  A  M ERIC  A  N  DIPL  OMA  C  F, 

the  first  sentence  of  the  proviso  after  "  water."     The 
proviso  as  at  first  proposed  had  read  : 

"  Provided,  however,  that  American  fishermen  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  enter  such  bays  and  harbors  for  the  purpose  only  of 
obtaining  shelter,  wood,  water,  and  bait." 

The  power  of  obtaining  bait  for  use  in  the  deep- 
sea  fisheries  is  one  which  our  fishermen  were  after- 
ward very  anxious  to  secure.  But  the  mackerel 
fisheries  in  those  waters  did  not  begin  until  several 
years  later.  The  only  contention  then  was  about  the 
cod  fisheries.  The  renunciation  of  any  liberty  to 
take,  dry,  or  cure  fish  in  territory  not  included  within 
the  limits  mentioned,  was  inserted  by  the  American 
commissioners  much  against  the  wish  of  the  British, 
as  they  desired  to  prevent  any  implication  that  the 
fisheries  secured  to  us  were  a  new  grant,  and  in  order 
to  show  that  we  still  continued  to  maintain  that  they 
had  been  perpetually  secured  to  us  by  the  treaty  of 

1783. 

In  1 8 19  Parliament  passed  a  statute  to  carry  out 
the  stipulations  of  the  conventions  of  18 18,  empower- 
ing the  Privy  Council  to  make  such  regulations  and 
give  such  instructions  as  were  deemed  proper,  and 
providing  that  any  foreign  vessel  found  fishing,  or  to 
have  been  fishing,  or  preparing  to  fish{within  thiee 
miles  of  the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  outside  of 
the  limits  specified  in  the  treaty,  might  be  seized  and 
condemned  3  imposing  fines  for   persons   refusing  to 


THE  FISHERIES.  41 1 

depart  from  such  bays  on  being  required  to  do  so,  or 
neglecting  to  conform  to  any  of  the  regulations.  Be- 
tween 1 8 19  and  1854  the  provincial  legislatures 
adopted  various  laws  relating  to  American  fishermen, 
purporting  to  be  based  on  the  treaty  of  18 18,  far 
more  stringent  and  minute  in  their  provisions  than 
the  imperial  act,  and  in  many  respects,  as  our  fisher- 
men and  our  Government  have  claimed,  contrary  to 
the  treaty.  Very  many  seizjjres  and  confiscations  of 
American  vessels  by  the  British  authorities  took 
place  on  the  following  grounds :  i,  fishing  within 
the  prescribed  limits;  2,  anchoring  or  hovering  in 
shore  during  calm  weather  without  any  ostensible 
cause,  having  on  board  ample  supplies  of  wood  and 
water;  3,  lying  at  anchor  and  remaining  inside  of 
bays  to  clean  and  pick  fish  ;  4,  purchasing  and  bar- 
tering bait,  and  preparing  to  fish  ;  5,  selling  goods 
and  buying  supplies ;  6,  landing  and  transshipping 
cargoes  of  fish. 

It  will  be  seen  that  most  of  these  djfi5culties  arose 
from  a  change  in  the  character  of  the  fisheries.  Cod, 
being  (taught  on  the  banks,  were  seldom  pursued 
within  the  three-mile  limit.  And  yet  it  was  to  cod, 
and  perhaps  halibut,  that  all  the  early  negotiations 
had  referred.  The  mackerel  fishing  had  now  sprung 
up  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  had  proved  ex- 
tremely profitable.  This  was  at  that  time  an  in- 
shore fishery. 


412  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

More  than  that,  vessels  at  various  times  have  been 
seized  for  fishing  within  large  bays,  such  as  the  Bay 
of  Fundy,  although  ten  or  fifteen  miles  from  shore. 
The  expression  of  "  three  marine  miles  from  the 
coast,"  as  used  in  the  treaty  of  1818,  was  interpreted 
by  us  to  mean  three  marine  miles  from  the  coast  fol- 
lowing all  its  sinuosities.  The  English,  on  the  other 
hand,  claimed  that  this  line  should  be  measured  at 
three  miles'  distance  from  extreme  headland  to  head- 
land, including  all  waters  inside  of  this  exterior 
boundary,  and  especially  all  bays  and  gulfs,  whether 
great  or  small.  ^  Our  claim  seems  first  to  have  been 
presented  to  the  British  government  in  ^824,  when 
we  complained  of  interruptions  to  the  taking  and 
curing  of  fish  in  the  Bay  of  Fujuiy  by  American  citi- 
zens, and  the  seizure  of  their  vessels)  Mr.  Addington 
replied  in  February,  1825,  justifying  such  seizure  on 
the  ground  that  the  fishing  was  within  the  limits  of 
prohibition.  The  President,  in  1840,  communicated 
to  Congress  various  documents  relating  to  the  arrest 
of  vessels  in  1839;  and  from  that  time  until  1845  we 
had  an  elaborate  diplomatic  correspondence  with 
Great  Britain  on  this  subject.  On  March  10,  1845, 
Lord  Aberdeen  announced  to  Mr.  Everett  that  the 
British  government  did  not  admit  the  correctness  of  | 
the  construction  put  upon  the  treaty  of  18 18  by  the  \ 
United  States,  nor  did  it  abandon  its  own  interpre- 
tation ;  but   from  considerations  of  comity!  it  would  '^ 


THE  FISHERIES.  413 

relax  its  rights  to  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  but  iiQt  to  other 
bays.  ]  Mr.  Everett  refused  to  accept  these  conces- 
sions as  a  favor,  but  demanded  them  as  a  right.  In 
1852  the  British  government  declared  its  intention  of 
enforcing  its  rights  with  greater  strictness,  and  sent  a 
squadron  to  the  fishing  grounds ;  but  Lord  Malmes- 
bury  consented  to  leave  the  Bay  of  Fundy  in  the 
condition  in  which  it  had  been  placed  by  Lord  Aber- 
deen in  1845.  We  based  our  arguments  on  the  gen- 
eral principles  of  international  law,  which  have  been 
accepted  by  all  except  British  authorities,  and  even 
by  some  of  them.  And  our  case  was  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that  in  the  treaty  between  Great  Britain 
and  France  of  August  3,  1839,  stipulating  for  the 
right  of  fishing  within  a  distance  of  three  miles  from 
low-water  mark,  the  ninth  article  of  that  treaty  pro- 
vided that  "this  distance  shall  be  measured  in  the 
case  of  bays,  of  which  the  opening  shall  not  exceed 
ten  miles,  by  a  straight  line  drawn  across  from  one 
cape  to  the  other." 

/In  1853  a  convention  was  made  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  for  referring  various 
claims  to  a  mixed  commission  for  arbitration. )  One 
claim  brought  before  this  commission  was  that  of  the 
owners  of  the  Washington,  which  had  been  seized  in 
1843  while  fishing  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy.  The  com- 
missioners disagreed,  but  the  umpire  decided  that  as 
the  Bay  of  Fundy  is  from  sixty-five  to  seventy-five 


414  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

miles  wide,  and  from  one  hundred  and  thirty  to  one 
hundred  and  forty  miles  long,  it  is  not  a  British  bay 
nor  a  bay  within  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  used  in 
the  treaty  of  1818. 

So  matters  stood,  when  in  181;^  a  treaty  was  con- 
cluded at  Washington  by  Mr.  Marcj^  and  Lord  Elgin, 
the  Governor-General  of  Canada,  acting  as  British 
plenipotentiary,  called  the  Reciprocity  Treaty.  By 
the  first  article  it  was  agreed  that 

*'  In  addition  to  the  liberty  secured  to  the  United  States  fisher- 
men by  the  convention  of  October  20,  1818,  of  taking,  curing, 
and  drying  fish  on  certain  coasts  of  the  British  North  American 
colonies  therein  defined,  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States 
shall  have,  in  common  with  the  subjects  of  her  Britannic 
Majesty,  the  liberty  to  take  fish  of  every  kind,  except  shell- 
fish, on  the  sea-coasts  and  shores,  and  in  the  bays,  harbors, 
and  creeks  of  Canada,  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Prince 
Edward's  Island,  and  of  the  several  islands  thereunto  adjacent, 
without  being  restricted  to  any  distance  from  the  shore  ;  with 
permission  to  land  upon  the  coasts  and  shores  of  those  colonies 
and  the  islands  thereof,  and  also  upon  the  Magdalen  Islands, 
for  the  purpose  of  drying  their  nets  and  curing  their  fish  ;  pro- 
vided that,  in  so  doing,  they  did  not  interfere  with  the  rights 
of  private  property,  or  with  British  fishermen  in  the  peaceable 
use  of  any  part  of  said  coast  in  their  occupancy  for  the  same 
purpose." 

Under  the  liberal  provisions  of  this  treaty  there  Wcis 
a  cessation  of  the  complaints  of  our  fishermen ;  but  in 
1866.  this  Reciprocity  Treaty  was  abrogated  on  the 
motion  of  the  United  States.     It  was  maintained  by 


THE  FISHERIES.  4^5 

our  Government  that  in  consequence  of  this  abroga- 
tion the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1818  again  came 
into  force.  The  claims  on  both  sides,  which  had  only- 
been  temporarily  suspended  by  the  Reciprocity  Treaty, 
were  also  revived,  and  with  them  frequent  disputes. 
The  various  laws  of  the  provincial  governments  re- 
stricting the  movements  of  American  fishermen  were 
revived  by  the  Dominion  act  of  May  22,  1868,  with 
its  amendment  of  May  10,  1870;  and  even  on  January 
8,  1870,  the  Governor-General  of  Canada  made  an 
order  "  that  henceforth  all  foreign  fishermen  shall  be 
prevented  from  fishing  in  the  waters  of.  Canada."  Mr. 
Fish,  on  May  31,  1870,  called  the  attention  of  the 
British  minister  to  the  broad  and  illegal  terms  of  this 
order,  which  directly  contravened  the  treaty  of  1818, 
and  requested  its  modification.  High  commissioners 
met  soon  after  in  Washington,  and  after  prolonged 
negotiations  signed  the  treaty  of  1871.  The  eigh- 
teenth article  of  this  treaty  revived  the  first  article 
already  quoted  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty,  stipulating, 
however,  that  it  should  exist  for  the  term  of  ten  years, 
and  for  two  years  after  either  of  the  contracting  parties 
should  have  given  notice  to  the  other  of  its  wish  to 
terminate  the  same.  The  nineteenth  article  granted, 
as  a  compensation  to  British  subjects,  the  right  of  fish- 
ing on  the  eastern  sea-coasts  and  shores  of  the  United 
States  nortlL_of _the_thirty-ninth  degree  of  latitude. 
The  corresponding  article  of  the  Reciprocity  Treaty 


4l6  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

had  given  such  rights  down  to  the  thirty-sixth  par- 
allel. By  the  twenty-first  article  it  was  agreed  that 
for  the  term  of  years  mentioned, 

*  *  Fish-oil  and  fisli  of  all  kinds  (except  fish  of  the  inland  lakes 
and  of  the  rivers  falling  into  them,  and  except  fish  preserved 
in  oil),  being  the  produce  of  the  fisheries  of  the  United  States, 
or  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  or  of  Prince  Edward's  Island, 
shall  be  admitted  into  each  country  respectively  free  of  duty." 

As  Great  Britain  asserted  that  the  privileges  ac- 
corded to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  were 
greater  in  value  than  those  accorded  by  the  United 
States  to  British  subjects,  an  assertion  that  was  not 
admitted  by  the  United  States,  it  was  agreed  that 
commissioners  should  be  appointed  to  determine  the 
amount  of  compensation  which  ought  to  be  paid  by 
the  United  States  to  Great  Britain  in  return  for  these 
fishing  privileges.  This  commission  met  at  Halifax 
in  1877,  the  treaty  having  gone  into  effect  on  July  i, 
1873.  The  commission  was  composed  of  one  Ameri- 
can, Mr.  E.  H.  Kellogg,  a  New  England  country 
lawyer ;  Mr.  A.  T.  Gait,  a  prominent  Canadian  states- 
man ;  and  M.  Maurice  Delfosse,  then  Belgian  minis- 
ter at  Washington.  The  British  agent  was  Mr.  Fran- 
cis Clare  Ford,  now  British  Minister  at  Madrid ;  our 
agent  was  Mr.  Dwight  Foster,  a  distinguished  lawyer 
of  Massachusetts,  assisted  by  Mr.  William  H.  Trescot 
and  Mr.  Richard  H.  Dana,  Jr.  During  the  negotia- 
tions at  Washington    in   1871,  we  had   proposed  to 


THE  FISHERIES.  41/ 

purchase  the  right  to  enjoy,  in  perpetuity,  the  use  of 
the  inshore  fisheries,  in  common  with  British  fisher- 
men, and  had  offered  the  sum  of  $i,ooo,cxx).  This 
was  thought  inadequate  by  the  British  negotiators. 
Now,  after  a  session  of  over  five  months,  after  hearing 
evidence  and  arguments  on  each  side,  the  Halifax 
commission,  by  a  vote  of  two  to  one,  on  November 
23,  1877,  decided  that  we  were  to  pay  for  a  twelve 
years'  use  of  these  fishing  privileges  the  sum  of  $5,- 
500,000.  The  evidence  was  clear,  for  four  years  had 
already  elapsed,  that  the  fisheries  were  not  in  them- 
selves worth  this  ;  but  other  claims  were  taken  into 
consideration.  There  was,  perhaps,  a  feeling  of  the 
necessity  of  offsetting  the  Alabama  award,  and  our 
commissioner  was  certainly  unfitted  for  his  place. 
Hence  this  great  award  was  given  to  our  prejudice. 
There  was  a  general  dissatisfaction  in  the  United 
States,  but  the  money  was  paid  without  an  official 
murmur,  although  we  knew  that  these  fisheries  were 
becoming  yearly  of  less  value  and  use  to  us. 

When  the  time  came  that  this  part  of  the  treaty  of 
1 87 1  could  be  terminated.  Congress,  by  a  resolution 
which  was  approved  on  March  3,  1883,  directed  the 
President  to  take  the  proper  steps,  and  notice  was 
accordingly  given  on  July  i,  1883,  of\^the  termination 
of  the  treaty,  which  came  to  an  end  on  July  I,  1885) 

As  the  termination  of  the  treaty  fell  in  the  middle 

of  the  fishing  season,  Mr.  Bayard,  the  Secretary  of 
27 


41 8  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

State,  acting  partly  on  the  representations  of  New 
England  fishermen,  and  partly  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  British  minister,  agreed,  on  June  22,  1885,  to  ex- 
tend the  agreement  of  the  treaty  through  the  season 
of  1885,  with  the  exception  of  the  exemption  from 
customs  duties.  This  agreement  contemplated  fur- 
ther negotiations,  and  in  his  message  of  December, 
1885,  the  President  recommended  the  appointment 
of  a  commission  for  such  negotiations.  This  recom- 
mendation has  met  with  disfavor  in  Congress,  on  the 
ground  that  any  reciprocity  in  fishing  privileges  would 
do  us  more  harm  than  good.  Indeed,  the  situation 
seems  to  have  totally  changed  in  the  last  few  years. 
I  cannot  do  better  than  quote  on  this  subject  from  a 
recent  article  in  Science  of  February  5,  1886,  which 
seems  to  reflect  the  opinion  of  the  United  States  Fish 
Commission : 

'*  The  fisheries-treaty  question,  which  is  now  the  subject  of 
so  much  discussion,  is  a  very  complicated  one  ;  and  it  is  not 
at  all  surprising  that  the  Secretary  of  State,  following  tradi- 
tionary policy  of  more  than  a  hundred  years'  standing,  and 
acting  upon  the  long-established  theory  that  participation  in 
the  fishery  privileges  of  Canadian  waters  is  of  great  value, 
should  have  failed  to  satisfy  the  expectations  of  the  New  England 
fishermen,  who  know  so  well  that  these  privileges  have  long 
been  valueless.  A  general  impression  seems  to  exist  that  our 
fishing-fleet  no  longer  visits  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  only  be- 
cause there  has  been  a  temporary  desertion  of  those  waters  by 
the  species  of  fish  which  they  seek.  Such,  also,  is  the  idea  of 
the  Canadians.    In  his  recent  article  in  the  North  American  Re- 


THE  FISHERIES.  419 

vieiv^  Lord  Lome  patronizingly  suggests  to  his  '  good  friends ' 
across  the  line  that  they  should  not  be  too  hasty  in  throwing 
aside  the  right  to  fish  in  EngHsh  waters,  because  the  fish  may 
before  long  return  in  their  former  abundance. 

''  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  abundance  of  fish  in  the  Gulf  has 
very  little  to  do  with  the  question  as  it  now  presents  itself. 
Since  1871,  when  the  Washington  treaty  was  negotiated,  a 
complete  revolution  has  taken  place  both  in  the  fisheries  and 
the  fish  trade  of  the  United  States  ;  and,  strangely  enough,  this 
revolution  was  effected  chiefly  in  the  six  years  which  inter- 
vened between  the  completion  of  this  treaty  and  the  meeting 
in  1877  of  the  Halifax  convention,  by  which  $5,500,000  were 
awarded  to  Great  Britain  as  a  compensation  for  a  concession 
to  our  fishermen,  which  had  ceased  to  be  of  value  to  them,  in 
addition  to  the  remission  of  duties  on  Canadian^  fish,  which 
during  the  period  of  fourteen  years  have  amounted  to  several 
millions  of  dollars.  Our  Government  has  thus,  unintentionally 
of  course,  been  paying  each  year  a  large  subsidy  to  the  fish- 
eries of  British  North  America,  and  developing  the  Canadian 
fisheries  at  the  expense  of  our  own  ;  and  Canadian  competi- 
tion has  become  so  great  that  our  fishermen  feel  that  they 
have  a  strong  claim  upon  the  Government  for  some  kind  of 
protection.  The  fishermen  therefore  demand  that  the  duty 
upon  Canadian  fish  be  restored,  and  that  their  own  privileges 
shall  be  based  upon  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  18 18,  which 
will  again  go  into  effect,  if  no  new  treaty  arrangements  are 
made.  Our  dealers  in  cured  fish,  on  the  other  hand,  mindful 
of  the  profits  of  handling  the  product  of  the  Canadian  fisheries, 
are  clamorous  for  a  continuance  of  the  present  free-trade 
policy. 

"  The  revolution  in  the  American  fisheries  is  so  extensive 
that  it  can  scarcely  be  discussed  in  a  notice  so  brief  as  this. 
One  of  the  principal  changes  is  the  adoption  of  the  purse-seine 
in  the  mackerel  fishery,  by  which  the  fish  are  caught  far  out 


420  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

at  sea,  and  in  immense  quantities,  by  enclosing  them  in  an  im- 
mense bag  of  netting.  Formerly  they  were  taken  solely  with 
hooks  by  the  *  chumming '  process.  This  was  in  the  best 
days  of  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  mackerel  fishery,  when  hun- 
dreds of  American  vessels  would  frequently  lie  side  by  side, 
throwing  overboard  vast  quantities  of  oily,  mushy  bait,  by 
which  the  schools  of  fish  were  enticed  within  reach.  There  is 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  mackerel  were  as  abundant  then  as 
now  off  our  own  coast,  but  the  old  method  of  fishing  was  not 
so  well  adapted  to  our  waters.  The  purse-seine,  on  the  other 
hand,  cannot  be  used  advantageously  in  the  Gulf,  nor  is  there 
any  necessity  for  our  fishermen  to  go  so  far  from  home  for 
their  fish.  There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  probability  that 
our  fishermen  will  ever  return  to  the  old  methods.  *  Chum- 
ming mackerel '  is  essentially  a  lost  art. 

*'  Another  feature  in  the  revolution  is  the  introduction  of  im- 
proved methods  of  marketing  fresh  fish.  With  the  extensive 
refrigerating  establishments  now  in  operation,  and  the  facili- 
ties for  rapid  transmission  of  sea-fish  inland,  the  demand  for 
salted  fish  is  relatively  very  much  less  than  it  was  fifteen  years 
ago.  Then,  too,  the  immense  competition  produced  by  the 
free  entry  of  Canadian  fish  has  lowered  the  price  of  cured  fish 
until  a  very  decided  depreciation  in  its  quality  has  resulted, 
with  a  consequent  decrease  in  demand." 


IX. 
COMMERCIAL   TREATIES. 

General  Commercial  Treaties. — The  Most  Favored  Nation. — 
Special  Commercial  Treaties. — Changes  in  Commerce. — 
Our  Earliest  Treaties. — Commercial  Relations  and  Ne- 
gotiations with  Great  Britain. — Treaties  of  1794,  1806, 
and  181 5. — Reciprocity  Treaty  of  1854. — Mr.  Wheaton's 
Negotiations  with  the  German  ZoUverein. — Advantageous 
Treaty  Rejected  by  the  Senate. — The  Mexican  Treaty  of 
1859,— That  of  1883.— The  Hawaiian  Treaty,— The  recent 
Treaty  with  Spain. 

Commercial  treaties  are  in  their  nature  either  gen- 
eral or  special.  The  ordinary  general  treaties  of  com- 
merce and  navigation  which  secures  to  the  contract- 
ing parties  rights  which  otherwise  would  be  granted 
only  to  subjects,  are,  in  general,  reciprocal  in  their 
nature,  both  parties  granting  like  favors  and  immu- 
nities to  the  other.  In  such  treaties  it  has  been  usual 
to  insert  what  is  called  the  "  most-favored-nation 
clause,"  the  effect  of  which  is  to  give  to  each  party 
the  same  treatment  and  the  same  privileges  which 
have  been  or  may  be  granted  to  the  most  favored 
nation  without  further  specification  or  agreement. 
The  form  in  which  this  clause  has  been  inserted  in 


422  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

most  of  our  treaties  is  as  follows,  from  our  treaty  with 
Italy : 

"  The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Kingdom  of  Italy 
mutually  engage  not  to  grant  any  particular  favor  to  other  na- 
tions, in  respect  to  commerce  and  navigation,  which  shall  not 
immediately  become  common  to  the  other  party,  who  shall 
enjoy  the  same  freely,  if  the  concession  was  freely  made,  or  on 
allowing  the  same  compensation,  if  the  concession  was  con- 
ditional." 

The  most-favored-nation  clause  is  not  expressed  in 
our  late  treaties  in  as  absolute  terms  as  it  generally  is 
in  foreign  treaties;  and,  in  speaking  of  "compensa- 
tion," if  the  concession  should  be  conditional,  we 
have  endeavored  to  keep  to  ourselves  the  right  of 
making  special  commercial  treaties,  the  stipulations 
of  which  should  not  be  extended  to  other  powers. 

Special  commercial  treaties  are  of  two  varieties. 
One,  where  either  by  force  or  predominance  certain 
favors  are  granted  by  one  party  which  are  not  re- 
ciprocally granted  by  the  other,  and  which  are  there- 
fore not  common  to  all  the  world,  even  under  the 
most-favored-nation  clause ;  and  the  other,  where  re- 
ciprocal advantages  are  stipulated  for,  but  of  a  special 
nature.  The  general  policy  of  the  United  States  has 
been  to  avoid  special  commercial  treaties,  and  to  place 
the  conditions  of  their  commerce  on  an  equality  for 
the  whole  world.  On  several  occasions  we  have  de- 
rogated from  this   policy,  especially  with  regard  to 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  423 

countries  in  our  immediate  neighborhood ;  and  very 
recently  the  Government  proposed  a  whole  system  of 
special  commercial  treaties  which,  if  carried  out, 
would  perhaps  secure  to  our  commerce  very  great  ad- 
vantages. Whether  these  recent  treaties  be  ratified 
or  not,  the  system  is  one  to  which  we  shall  un- 
doufttedly  be  forced  to  come  sooner  or  later.  The 
increase  in  the  manufacturing  interests  of  several  con- 
tinental states,  which  make  them  rivals  to  England, 
the  growth  of  their  commerce,  and  the  great  impor- 
tance which  the  governments  of  civilized  states  now 
give  to  commercial  questions,  have  brought  about  a 
system  of  special  commercial  treaties  in  Europe  which 
we  shall  be  obliged  to  imitate,  at  least  for  the  coun- 
tries in  this  hemisphere,  unless  we  intend  to  lose  even 
those  advantages  which  we  have  hitherto  enjoyed. 
Changes  in  commercial  theories  and  practices,  as  well 
as  the  changes  brought  about  in  transportation,  to 
say  nothing  of  those  caused  by  new  political  systems, 
compel  us  to  be  on  the  alert  and  watchful  lest  our 
interests  receive  detriment.  For  example,  a  few 
years  ago  an  attempt  was  made  in  Germany  to  pro- 
tect German  products  by  a  higher  freight  tariff  on  the 
German  railways  for  foreign  goods.  In  practice,  in 
one  particular  article,  this  worked  disadvantageously  ; 
for  Russian  grain,  instead  of  being  sent  through 
Danzig,  found  its  way  through  the  Hungarian  port  of 
Fiume,  and  was   the  immediate   cause  of   the  great 


424  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

increase  and  the  prosperity  of  that  port.  It  has 
therefore  been  considered  advisable  in  the  most  re- 
cent commercial  treaties  to  insert  a  stipulation  that 
no  higher  charge  shall  be  made  for  the  transportation 
of  foreign  goods  over  the  railways  of  the  country 
than  for  native  goods.  This  was  inserted  in  our  re- 
cent treaty  with  Serbia  of  1881. 

The  difficulty  which  we  have  had  with  certain  for- 
eign governments  with  regard  to  the  importation  of 
American  pork  will  be  obviated  by  more  recent  com- 
mercial treaties,  which  provide  that  the  authorities  of 
the  country  have  power  to  forbid  the  importation  of 
any  articles  which  may  be  deleterious  to  public  health. 
Such  a  provision  not  having  been  inserted  in  the 
most  of  our  treaties  with  foreign  powers,  we  are  un- 
willing to  yield  to  their  declaration  that  questions  of 
public  health  override  all  treaty  stipulations. 

While  the  United  States  were  yet  colonies  of  Great 
Britain,  they  had  been  precluded  from  any  trade  ex- 
cept with  Great  Britain  itself,  and  with  certain  little 
valuable  markets  in  Africa,  the  South  of  Europe,  and 
the  West  Indies.  The  parallel  of  Cape  Finisterre, 
the  boundary  of  the  northern  trade,  entirely  cut  off 
France,  Holland,  and  the  northern  countries  of  Europe. 
So  accustomed  were  the  European  powers  to  consider 
the  colonial  trade  of  especial  value,  that  when  the 
United  States  cut  loose  from  Great  Britain,  both 
France   and    Holland   were  exceedingly   anxious    to 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  425 

obtain  the  monopoly,  or  at  least  a  great  share  of  our 
commerce.  However,  in  our  commercial  treaty  with 
France  of  1778,  we  simply  admitted  France  to  trade 
with  the  United  States,  without  giving  her  any  ex- 
clusive advantages.  The  same  thing  took  place  in  our 
treaty  of  1782  with  the  Netherlands;  although  the 
advantages  expected  to  be  derived  from  the  American 
trade  had  greatly  influenced  Holland,  and  especially 
the  merchants  of  Amsterdam,  to  a  state  of  friendliness 
and  subsequently  to  a  treaty. 

William  Pitt,  then  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer, 
in  March,  1783,  after  the  provisional  treaty  and  armis- 
tice had  been  concluded,  and  before  the  permanent 
treaty  of  peace  had  been  made,  wishing  to  attract  the 
trade  of  America  to  Great  Britain,  and  to  continue 
the  old  commercial  relations,  brought  a  bill  into  Parlia- 
ment, in  which  he  proposed  to  admit  American  ships 
and  American  goods  into  Great  Britain  on  the  same 
principles  as  British  ships  and  goods,  with  the  same 
duties,  and  entitled  to  the  same  drawbacks,  exemp- 
tions, and  bounties.  One  of  the  chief  adversaries  of 
this  proposition  was  Mr.  Eden,  afterward  Lord  Auck- 
land, who  feared  that  such  an  arrangement  would  in- 
jure British  trade,  and  that  it  woiild  be  contrary  to 
treaties  with  other  powers,  and  who  believed  that  in 
any  case,  as  was  indeed  the  fact,  American  commerce 
would  continue  to  seek  English  markets  instead  of 
foreign  ones.    Such  was  the  opposition  that  Mr.  Pitt's 


426  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

bill  failed.  Our  commercial  relations  with  England 
remained  in  an  undefined  condition  all  the  more  dis- 
agreeable to  us,  because  when  colonies  we  had  had 
the  right  of  trading  with  other  British  colonies,  which 
after  the  Revolution  was  taken  away  from  us.  In  1790 
our  Navigation  Act  was  passed,  which  laid  a  duty  of 
fifty  cents  per  ton  on  foreign  vessels,  and  an  extra  duty 
of  ten  per  cent.,  ad  valorem,  on  all  merchandise  im- 
ported in  them. 
ij^  During  the  Confederation  it  was  impossible  to  do 
anything  for  the  furtherance  of  commerce  because 
Congress  had  no  power  over  commercial  matters.  It 
was,  indeed,  this  very  lack  of  power  which  finally 
brought  about  the  Federal  Constitution. 

An  attempt  was  made  in  1794  to  regulate  the  com- 
mercial relations  of  the  two  countries ;  but  by  the 
treaty  of  that  year  we  succeeded  in  getting  few  advan- 
tages. The  duties  on  all  ships  and  merchandise  were 
put  in  the  two  countries  on  the  footing  of  the  most 
favored  nation.  There  was  reciprocal  and  perfect 
liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation  between  the  ter- 
ritories of  the  United  States  and  the  dominions  of 
Great  Britain  in  Europe.  As  far  as  the  West  India 
trade  was  concerned,  ships  of  not  more  than  seventy 
tons  burden  could  trade  between  the  United  States 
and  the  West  Indies ;  but  their  cargoes  were  to  be 
unloaded  in  the  United  States;  and  more  than  that, 
American  vessels  were  prohibited  from  carrying  any 


COMMERCIAL   TREATIES.  42/ 

rriolasscs,  sugar,  coffee,  cocoa,  or  cotton,  either  from 
British  islands  or  from  the  United  States,  to  any  part 
of  the  world  except  the  United  States.  The  object  of 
this  article  was  to  prevent  commerce  in  the  products 
of  the  British  West  India  Islands,  which  had  for  the 
sake  of  form  been  landed  in  the  United  States.  It 
was  not  at  that  time  thought  that  much  cotton  could 
be  produced  in  the  United  States,  although  a  small 
amount  of  it  had  indeed  at  that  time  been  cultivated. 
Louisiana  not  yet  being  annexed,  none  of  the  other 
products  could  originate  in  the  United  States.  Per- 
mission was  given  also  to  trade  with  the  East  Indies  ; 
but  ships,  after  having  loaded  there,  were  obliged  to 
proceed  directly  to  the  United  States  without  touch- 
ing at  any  other  port  or  country,  except  at  the  island 
of  St.  Helena  for  refreshment. 

In  1806  Mr.  Monroe,  then  minister  to  England,  and 
Mr.  William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  were  commis- 
sioned to  negotiate  a  commercial  treaty  with  Great 
Britain.  This  they  did,  and  in  some  respects  it  was 
the  most  favorable  treaty  ever  obtained  from  that 
power.  The  articles  of  the  treaty  of  1794,  which  had 
not  expired,  were  confirmed,  with  some  changes.  The 
trade  to  India  was  made  a  direct  one,  going  as  well 
as  coming — a  change  not  so  advantageous  to  us  as 
the  previous  agreement.  The  colonial  trade  with  an 
enemy's  colony  was  arranged  in  a  manner  satisfactory 
to  us  at  the  moment,  for  we  never  had  agreed  to  the 


428  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

rule  of  1756,  which  forbade  the  coasting  and  tfie 
colonial  trade  in  war,  if  it  had  been  forbidden  by- 
municipal  law  in  peace.  The  list  of  contraband  arti- 
cles was  lessened  by  excluding  provisions.  Unfortu- 
nately it  had  been  found  impossible  to  obtain  any 
concessions  from  England  with  regard  to  the  right  of 
impressment  of  seamen  claimed  by  that  country,  and 
in  consequence  the  President,  without  even  consult- 
ing the  Senate,  refused  to  ratify  the  treaty. 

In  181 5  we  at  last  succeeded  in  concluding  a  com- 
mercial convention  with  Great  Britain,  the  chief  ad- 
vantage of  which  was  the  entire  abrogation  between 
the  two  countries  of  discriminating  rates  on  vessels 
and  importations.  Goods  imported  in  American 
vessels  were  not  to  be  charged  higher  duties  than  in 
British  vessels,  and  vice  versa ;  and  American  goods 
imported  into  Great  Britain  were  not  to  be  charged 
higher  duties  than  those  imposed  in  any  other  country. 
With  regard  to  the  East  India  trade  the  arrangement 
was  substantially  the  same  as  in  1794;  but  not  quite 
so  favorable  because  American  vessels  were  restricted 
to  four  ports  of  entry.  We  refused  to  allow  the  Eng- 
lish to  trade  with  our  Indians;  and  they  in  turn 
refused  to  give  us  the  use  of  the  St.  Lawrence  River. 
This  treaty  was  concluded  for  four  years,  but  was  sub- 
sequently renewed  in  1818  for  ten  years,'"  and   again 

*  For  a  full  and  interesting  account  of  these  negotiations 
with  England,  see  the   Diplomacy   of  the    United   States,  by 


COMMERCIAL   TREATIES.  429 

in  1827  for  ten  years  more.  It  was  in  vain  that  our 
Government  struggled  to  obtain  a  more  liberal  ar- 
rangement, or  at  least  a  more  liberal  interpretation  of 
the  treaty. 

Before  1845  trade  with  Canada  and*  the  British 
colonies  was  burdened  with  a  system  of  differential 
duties  which  discriminated  against  foreign  in  favor  of 
British  goods,  and  prevented  extensive  importation 
into  those  provinces  from  the  United  States.  The 
British  colonial  policy  was  changed  in  1845,  and  the 
Canadian  legislature,  on  receiving  commercial  liberty, 
in  1846  removed  the  differential  duties.  The  imme- 
diate result  was  a  great  increase  of  trade,  and  the 
imports  from  the  United  States  increased  from  about 
four  millions  of  dollars  in  1844  to  about  eleven  mill- 
ions in  185 1.  This  relaxation  of  commercial  restric- 
tions was  accompanied  by  propositions  for  reciprocal 
free  trade  between  Canada  and  the  United  States. 
Mr.  Packenham,  the  British  minister,  communicated 
with  our  Government  on  the  subject  in  1846;  Mr. 
Bancroft  was  engaged  in  negotiations  in  London  in 

1847,  and  in  consequence  of  renewed  representations 
a  bill  was  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  in 

1848,  though  it  did  not  reach  a  vote  in  the  Senate. 
President  Taylor  submitted  the  subject  to  Congress 
in  1850,  and  President  Fillmore  again  in  185 1  and  in 

Theodore  Lyman,  Jr. — a  book  which  is  unfortunately  out  of 
print. 


430  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

1853.  Finally,  after  long  negotiations,  a  treaty  was 
signed,  on  June  5,  1854,  by  Mr.  Marcy  and  Lord 
Elgin,  which  was  duly  ratified.  This  treaty  settled 
for  the  time  the  fishery  question,  as  well  as  that  of 
the  navigation  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  and  provided  for 
reciprocal  free  trade  in  a  specified  list  of  raw  materials. 
Owing,  as  has  been  already  said,  to  a  strong  protec- 
tionist feeling  in  Congress,  and  to  a  dislike  to  Canada 
arising  from  incidents  connected  with  our  war,  notice 
was  given  to  terminate  this  treaty,  and  it  accordingly 
came  to  an  end  on  March  17,  1866. 

In  July,  1869,  Sir  Edward  Thornton  proposed  new 
negotiations   for  a   similar  treaty,  based   on   that  of 

1854,  with  the  addition  of  manufactured  articles  to 
the  free  list,  the  mutual  opening  of  the  coasting  trade, 
the  protection  of  patents  and  copyrights,  and  extra- 
dition. Negotiations  continued,  but  it  was  found 
impossible  to  come  to  a  satisfactory  arrangement,  and 
provisions  for  reciprocal  free  trade  were  therefore 
omitted  in  the  treaty  of  Washington  of  1871.^ 

*See  Senate  Ex.  Doc,  No.  i,  32d  Congress,  ist  Session; 
H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  32,  38th  Congress,  ist  Session;  H.  R. 
Ey.  Doc,  No.  64,  31st  Congress,  ist  Session;  Senate  Ex. 
Doc,  No.  3,  Special  Session,  March  8,  1853  ;  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc, 
No.  40,  32d  Congress,  2d  Session  ;  Report  No.  4,  H.  R.,  32d 
Congress,  2d  Session;  Report  No.  22,  H.  R.,  37th  Congress, 
2d  Session  ;  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  78,  39th  Congress,  2d  Ses- 
sion ;  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  Nos.  240  and  295,40th  Congress,  2d 
Session  ;  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc,  No.  36,  40th  Congress,  3d  Session  ; 
conf.  Ex.  Doc.  A,  Senate,  Special  Session,  1871. 


COMMERCIAL   TREATIES.  43 1 

Negotiations  for  commercial  privileges  with  the 
German  states  were  due  chiefly  to  the  initiative  of 
Mr.  Henry  Wheaton,  who  was  no  less  eminent  as  a 
negotiator  than  as  a  publicist.  Mr.  Wheaton  arrived 
in  Berlin,  as  minister,  in  June,  1835.  There  had  been 
no  minister  before  him  except  John  Quincy  Adams, 
who  had  been  sent  in  1797  for  the  renewal  of  the 
commercial  treaty  which  had  expired  in  1795.  Since 
that  time  Germany  had  taken  on  a  very  different 
form,  partly  in  consequence  of  the  arrangements 
made  by  the  treaty  of  Vienna  in  18 15,  and  partly 
through  the  customs-union.  At  that  time  there 
were  two  :  the  Zollverein^  composed  of  most  of  the 
states  of  Germany,  except  the  Austrian  dominions 
and  a  few  northern  countries,  which  formed  a  sepa- 
rate league  known  as  the  Steuer-verein.  Prussia  was 
at  the  head  of  the  Zollvcrein.  Mr.  Wheaton  was  in- 
structed by  Mr.  Forsyth  to  direct  his  attention  to 
the  establishment  of  commercial  relations  with  Ger- 
many, as  well  as  for  the  removal  of  the  droit  d'aii- 
baine  and  the  droit  de  detraction.  One  of  Mr. 
Wheaton's  first  duties  was  to  make  a  journey  through 
parts  of  Germany  and  collect  commercial  informa- 
tion. Two  things  had  especially  attracted  the  no- 
tice of  our  Government :  the  high  duties  on  tobacco, 
of  which  at  least  one-half  of  the  American  product 
was  consumed  in  Germany;  and  the  high  duties  on 
rice.     By  resolutions  of  the  Congress  of  1837-38  Mr. 


432  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

Wheaton  was  instructed  to  procure  a  reduction  of 
these  duties.  His  negotiations  went  on  for  six  years, 
for  he  was  somewhat  embarrassed  by  the  question  of 
the  "  most-favored-nation  "  clause  ;  that  is,  whether, 
if  we  gave  as  an  equivalent  to  Germany  for  the  re- 
duction of  duties  certain  reductions,  we  would  be 
bound  to  give  them  to  all  nations  with  whom  we  had 
treaties  containing  this  clause.  This  question  had 
first  sprung  up  in  consequence  of  the  convention  for 
the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  and  of  the  commercial 
convention  of  1815  with  Great  Britain,  and  it  was  in 
order  to  get  rid  of  such  obligations,  as  Mr.  Forsyth 
wrote  to  Mr.  Wheaton,  that  the  preference  accorded 
to  French  wines  was  inserted  in  the  treaty  with 
France  of  183 1.  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  had  ar- 
gued on  the  American  side,  and  it  was  believed 
answerably,  in  1 81 7,  with  regard  to  the  Louisiana 
treaty ;  and  Mr.  Wheaton  always  contended  for  the 
same  views.^  Mr.  Wheaton  went  before  the  Con- 
gress of  the  Zollverein  at  Dresden  in  1838  and  pre- 
sented a  memoir,  by  which  he  obtained  a  reduction 
of  duties  on  rice,  although  not  immediately  upon 
tobacco.  The  reciprocity  stipulations  in  our  previous 
treaties  were  thought  to  operate  disadvantageously 
to  American  navigation  in  the  case  of  the  Hanse 
towns,  especially  in  regard  to  tobacco.     For  while  in 

*  See  Congress.  Doc,  i8th  Congress,  2d  Session,  No.  91  ; 
also,  Lawrence's  Wheaton,  notes  on  pp.  493,  494,  ed.  of  1863. 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  433 

1828  there  was  a  great  preponderance  in  favor  of  the 
American  vessels,  in  1835  the  difference  in  the  to- 
bacco trade  alone  was  six  to  one  against  our  mercan- 
tile marine.  It  was,  therefore,  that,  in  the  treaty  with 
Hanover  of  1840,  Mr.  Wheaton  introduced  a  less 
extended  reciprocity  than  had  been  adopted  in  the 
previous  German  treaties. 

In  May,  1841,  Mr.  Webster  compiled,  from  the 
materials  furnished  him  by  Mr.  Wheaton,  a  report  on 
our  commerce  with  the  Zollverein,  which  was  laid 
before  Congress  with  the  President's  message,  and  the 
suggestion  was  made  of  entering  into  a  commercial 
treaty  with  the  Zollverein.  In  1842-43  Mr.  Wheaton 
attended  further  sessions  of  the  Commercial  Union, 
but  difficulties  were  raised  in  consequence  of  the 
augmentation  by  our  tariff  of  1842  of  the  duties  on 
articles  imported  into  the  United  States  from  Ger- 
many, and  retaliatory  measures  had  been  suggested. 
Nevertheless  Mr.  Wheaton  was  finally  successful  in 
signing  a  treaty  on  March  25,  1844.  The  United 
States  agreed  not  to  impose  on  certain  articles  of 
produce  or  manufacture  of  the  states  of  the  Zollve- 
rein duties  exceeding  twenty  per  cent.,  ad  valorem  ; 
on  others,  duties  exceeding  fifteen  per  cent. ;  and  on 
a  third  class,  duties  exceeding  ten  per  cent.  They 
agreed  also  not  to  increase  the  duties  on  wines  sent 
from    Prussia,   nor   to   impose   higher   duties   on  the 

wines  from  the  other  states.     The  Zollverein,  in  con- 
28 


434  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

sideration  of  this,  agreed  to  reduce  the  duties  on  to- 
bacco  and  lard  to  a  stipulated  rate ;  not  to  raise  the 
existing  duties  on  rice ;  and  not  to  impose  any  duty 
on  unmanufactured  cotton.  These  reductions,  how- 
ever, were  only  to  apply  to  goods  laden  on  board  the 
vessels  of  one  of  the  contracting  parties,  or  on  vessels 
placed  on  the  footing  of  national  vessels  by  treaties, 
and  imported  directly  from  the  ports  of  one  party 
to  those  of  the  other. 

Mr.  Wheaton's  treaty  was  considered  as  a  master- 
stroke by  most  of  his  colleagues  and  by  our  Govern- 
ment, and  naturally  aroused  the  jealousy  of  Great 
Britain  and  of  other  maritime  powers,  who  attempted 
to  claim  the  same  advantages  without  rendering  any 
corresponding  equivalent.  Transmitting  this  treaty 
to  the  Senate  in  April,  1844,  the  President  said  in 
his  message  that  he  "  could  not  but  anticipate  from 
its  ratification  important  benefits  to  the  great  agricul- 
tural, commercial,  and  navigating  interests  of  the 
United  States." 

This  treaty  was  rejected  by  the  Senate,  by  a  strictly 
party  vote  of  twenty-six  to  eighteen,  on  the  single 
ground  that  "  the  Legislature  was  the  department  of 
Government  by  which  commerce  should  be  regulated 
and  laws  of  revenue  passed  ; "  that  therefore  the  State 
Department  had  no  right  to  interfere  in  such  regula- 
tions by  negotiations.  This  view  was  contested  by 
Mr.  Calhoun,  who  became  Secretary  of  State  after  the 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  435 

sudden  death  of  Mr.  Upshur,  and  he  said  that  the  ob- 
jections of  the  committee  were  opposed  to  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  Government.  "  So  well  established," 
says  he,  "  is  the  practice,  that  it  is  believed  that  it  has 
never  before  been  questioned.  The  only  question  it 
is  believed  that  was  ever  made  was,  whether  an  act  of 
Congress  was  not  necessary  to  sanction  and  carry  the 
stipulations  making  the  change  into  effect."  In  a 
private  letter  to  Mr.  Wheaton,  of  June  28,  1844,  he 
spoke  of  the  reasons  assigned  for  its  objection  as  very 
inconclusive.* 

The  objections  made  to  the  Zollverein  treaty 
seemed  afterward  to  be  deemed  untenable ;  for  the 
Canadian  Reciprocity  Treaty  with  Great  Britain,  of 
1854,  which  was  made  in  the  same  way,  was  at  once 
ratified,  although  it  varied  the  existing  tariff,  and  a 
law  to  carry  it  into  effect  was  passed  by  Congress. 

In  1859  Mr.  McLane  was  sent  as  minister  to  Mex- 
ico, with  instructions  to  conclude  a  commercial  treaty. 
Unfortunately,  owing  to  the  slavery  question,  our 
country  was  then  in  such  a  state  that  anything  begun 
by  Mr.  Buchanan  was  treated  with  suspicion  by  a 
large  party  at  the  North,  and  a  treaty,  in  many  re- 
spects very  advantageous  to  us,  was  rejected  by  the 
Senate.  At  that  time  the  government  of  President 
Juarez  was  shut  up  in  Vera  Cruz,  and  it  was  believed 

*  Lawrence's  Wheaton,  ed.  of  1863,  Introductory  Remarks, 
p.  cvii. 


43^  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

at  Washington  that  by  giving  him  an  indefinite 
promise  of  eventual  support  he  could  be  induced  to 
sell  to  the  United  States  certain  provinces  of  Mexico. 
It  was  understood  that  at  first  Mr.  Buchanan  de- 
manded Lower  California,  Sonora,  Chihuahua,  and  a 
part  of  Coahuila.  These  offers  being  declined  our 
Government  then  reduced  its  demands  to  Lower  Cali- 
fornia only,  and  made  the  cession  of  that  territory  a 
sine  qua  non  of  the  treaty  negotiations.  When  it  was 
ascertained  that  the  Mexicans  would  not  sell  a  foot  of 
their  territory,  Mr.  McLane  received  instructions  in 
August,  1859,  to  abandon  such  demands.  During 
that  time,  however,  there  had  been  a  change  in  the 
cabinet  of  Juarez,  and  Mr.  McLane  was  obliged  to  re- 
turn home  at  the  end  of  August  without  any  treaty 
at  all.  In  November  he  was  sent  back  again.  Mr. 
O'Campo  had  returned  to  the  cabinet  as  Minister  of 
Foreign  Relations,  and  negotiations  were  renewed  and 
a  treaty  signed  on  December  14th.  This  had  one 
very  important  commercial  article,  the  eighth,  giving 
a  list  of  merchandise,  from  which  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  was  to  be  allowed  to 

''Select  those  which,  being  the  natural  industry  or  manu- 
factured product  of  either  of  the  two  republics,  may  be  ad- 
mitted for  sale  or  consumption  in  either  of  the  two  countries 
under  condition  of  perfect  reciprocity,  whether  they  be  con- 
sidered free  of  duty  or  at  a  rate  of  duty  to  be  fixed  by  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  ;  it  being  the  intention  of  the 
Mexican  republic  to  admit'the  articles  in  question  at  the  low- 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES,  437 

est  rate  of  duty,  and  even  free,  if  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  consents  thereto." 

There  were,  however,  other  important  stipulations; 
one  which  allowed  free  transit,  without  duty,  across 
the  isthmus  of  Tehuantepec,  with  ports  of  deposit, 
one  on  the  east  and  one  on  the  west  of  the  isthmus, 
and  also  a  free  right  of  way  of  transit  from  Mata- 
moras,  or  any  suitable  point  on  the  Rio  Grande,  to  the 
port  of  Mazatlan  on  the  Gulf  of  California.  Mexico 
agreed  to  employ  the  requisite  military  force  for  de- 
fending these  routes  should  it  ever  become  necessary; 
"  but  upon  failure  to  do  this,  from  any  cause  whatever, 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  might,  with  the 
consent  or  at  the  request  of  the  Government  of 
Mexico  or  their  minister,  or  other  competent  legal 
authorities,  employ  force  for  this  and  no  other  pur- 
pose." Still  further  provision  was  made  for  an  ex- 
ceptional case  of  unforeseen  or  imminent  danger  to 
the  lives  and  property  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  when  the  United  States  troops  could  be  em- 
ployed for  their  protection  without  any  consent  hav- 
ing been  previously  obtained. 

'*  In  consideration  of  these  stipulations  and  compensation  for 
the  revenue  surrendered  by  Mexico  on  the  goods  and  mer- 
chandise transported  free  of  duty  through  the  territory  of  the 
repubhc," 

the  United  States  agreed  to  pay  Mexico  the  sum  of 
$4,000,000;  but  two  million^  were  to  be  retained  for 


438  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

the   payment   of   claims   of    citizens   of   the   United 
States  against  the  government  of  Mexico. 

The  Mexican  treaty  came  up  first  in  the  executive 
session  of  the  Senate  on  February  28,  i860,  and,  as 
we  learn  by  the  account  of  the  proceedings  in  the 
New  York  Tribune  of  the  following  day,  it  was  vio- 
lently opposed  both  by  Senator  Wigfall,  of  Texas, 
and  Senator  Simmons,  of  Rhode  Island,  who  said  : 

**  It  is  substantially  reciprocal  free  trade  with  Mexico,  which 
would  require  us  in  the  clause  inserted  in  every  commercial 
treaty  for  the  last  forty  years  of  admitting  each  nation  on  an 
equal  footing  with  that  of  the  most  favored  nation,  to  allow 
other  nations  to  claim  similar  privileges,  and  would  result  in 
destroying  our  revenue  and  compelling  a  resort  to  direct  tax- 
ation." 

The  treaty  came  up  again  in  executive  session  on 
May  31st,  when  Mr.  Simmons  took  opposite  ground 
to  that  which  he  apparently  held  at  the  first  session, 
and  proposed  a  number  of  amendments  to  regulate 
the  articles  to  be  admitted  free  of  duty  in  either 
country  according  to  the  eighth  article.  Among 
these  we  find  from  Mexico,  tobacco,  sugar,  and  wool. 
Mr.  Hammond  objected  to  the  treaty,  on  the  ground 
that  it  would  be  equivalent  to  the  practical  annexa- 
tion of  Mexico,  and  he  could  not  see  how  the  South 
would  be  benefited  by  it ;  and  Mr.  Seward  was  un- 
willing to  commit  the  Government  to  an  important 
treaty  with   a  faction   which   might  be  immediately 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  439. 

deposed  by  another,  which  would  repudiate  the  action 
of  its  predecessor,  and  that  we  would  then  be  com- 
pelled even  to  surrender  what  had  been  acquired,  or 
probably  to  resort  to  war  for  its  enforcement.  The 
amendments  of  Mr.  Simmons  were  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  twenty  to  twenty-six,  and  Senator  Wigfall  then 
moved  an  amendment  providing  for  a  reclamation  of 
fugitives  from  service  or  labor,  which  received  a  ma- 
jority, but  not  a  two-thirds  majority.  The  treaty  was 
defeated  by  eighteen  to  twenty-seven.  Senators  Sim- 
mons and  Anthony  being  the  only  Republicans  who 
voted  in  favor  of  it.  A  motion  was  made  to  recon- 
sider, and  it  came  up  again  on  June  27th,  but  it  then 
went  over  to  the  next  session,  and  was  never  rati- 
fied.* 

The  extension  of  the  Mexican  railway  system  to 
connect  with  the  railways  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  great  increase  of  the  American  capital  invested  in 
Mexico,  led  to  a  resolution  in  the  Senate,  on  April  5, 
1882,  authorizing  negotiations  for  a  commercial  trea- 
ty with  Mexico.  General  Grant  and  Mr.  William 
Henry  Trescot  were  appointed  commissioners  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  and  Mr.  Romero  and  Mr. 
E.  Cafiedo  on  the  part  of  Mexico.  This  treaty  was 
signed  at  Washington  on  January  20,  1883,  and  pro- 
vided for  the  entry  into  the  United   States,  free  of 

*See  The  Mexican  Papers,  No.  3,  September  15,  i860,  by 
E.  E.  Dunbar. 


440  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

duty,  of  twenty-eight  articles  of  Mexican  produce,  in- 
cluding, among  other  things,  coffee,  unmanufactured 
leaf  tobacco,  and  sugar  of  not  above  sixteen  of  the 
Dutch  standard  and  color.  Seventy-three  articles  of 
American  produce  and  manufacture  were  to  be  ad- 
mitted free  of  duty  into  Mexico,  including  coal, 
petroleum,  iron  machines,  and  many  manufactured 
articles.  This  treaty  was  to  last  six  years,  but  could 
not  be  ratified  until  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
and  the  Mexican  government  had  passed  the  laws 
necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect.  It  was,  however, 
provided  that  the  contracting  parties  were  free  to 
make  such  changes  in  their  import  duties  as  their  re- 
spective interests  might  require,  and  to  grant  to  other 
nations  the  same  liberty  of  rights  in  regard  to  one  or 
more  of  the  articles  of  merchandise  named  in  the  an- 
nexed schedules,  either  by  legislation  or  treaties;  but 
if  such  changes  were  made,  the  party  affected  might 
denounce  the  treaty  before  the  six  years  had  elapsed, 
and  it  would  be  annulled  in  six  months  after  such 
denunciation. 

This  treaty,  after  a  long  debate  and  several  post- 
ponements, was  finally  approved  by  the  Senate ;  but 
as  Congress  has  never  yet  been  willing  to  pass  the 
laws  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect,  it  has  not  yet 
been  ratified.  Our  delay  in  this  matter  has  been  pre- 
judicial to  us;  for  Germany  and  Great  Britain  have 
not  been  slow  to  profit  by  it  in  beginning  negotiations 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  44 1 

for  treaties  more  beneficial  to  themselves  than  to  us ; 
and  if  the  time  should  come  when  Congress  should 
finally  consent  to  put  this  treaty  into  operation,  we 
may  find  that  the  advantages  which  we  once  could 
have  had  are  no  longer  ours.  That  question,  how- 
ever, belongs  to  the  sphere  of  legislation  and  not  to 
diplomacy. 

From  a  diplomatic  point  of  view  it  is  possible  that, 
considering  our  extensive  land  frontier  of  Mexico,  and 
the  ease  of  railway  communication,  we  might  have 
adopted  some  different  method  of  obtaining  the 
same  result,  and  one  which  would  shut  out  Euro- 
pean nations  from  the  same  privileges.  W.e  might, 
for  instance,  have  adopted  the  extended  definition 
of  local  frontier  traffic,  introduced  by  Austria  into 
her  treaty  with  Serbia,  by  which  the  whole  produce 
of  the  United  States,  or  of  Mexico,  might  have 
been  included  within  the  articles  of  local  frontier 
traffic. 

The  condition  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  had  been 
such  for  many  years  as  to  excite  the  apprehension  of 
our  statesmen.  The  trade  of  that  country  demanded 
an  outlet,  and  unless  facilities  were  afforded  by  the 
United  States,  there  was  great  fear  lest  the  commerce 
of  the  country  should  be  monopolized  by  Australia  and 
the  English,  which  would  result  in  the  Islands  becom- 
ing practically  a  British  possession.  From  a  political 
point  of  view  such  a  prospect  had  been  most  unpleas- 


442  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ant  for  the  United  States,  and  it  was  at  last  decided, 
in  1874,  to  negotiate  a  commercial  treaty  with  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  admitting  various  of  their  prod- 
ucts, especially  sugar,  free  of  duty  into  the  United 
States,  in  return  for  the  remission  of  duties  on  many 
objects  of  American  manufactures  and  production. 
This  treaty  was  signed  on  January  30,  1875.  Ratifi- 
cations were  exchanged  on  June  3d  of  the  same  year, 
and  Congress  subsequently  passed  a  law  carrying  its 
stipulations  into  effect.  By  one  article  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  agreed  to  impose  no 
export  duty  or  charges  on  the  articles  admitted  free  of 
duty  into  the  United  States,  so  that  it  was  impossible 
for  the  amount  of  revenue  given  up  by  our  Govern- 
ment to  be  taken  by  the  Hawaiian  Islands  in  the  way 
of  an  export  duty.  The  necessity  of  this  stipulation 
was  obvious  from  the  fact  that  when,  some  years  be- 
fore, in  order  to  answer  the  cry  for  a  free  breakfast 
table,  our  customs  duties  had  been  taken  off  from 
tea  and  coffee  the  government  of  Brazil  immediately 
placed  an  export  duty  on  the  coffee  sent  from  that 
country,  and  the  result  was  that  the  price  of  coffee  in 
the  American  markets  was  in  no  way  diminished ;  but 
the  amount  of  revenue  which  the  United  States  gave 
up  was  simply  put  into  the  treasury  of  Brazil.  Had 
we,  at  that  time,  instead  of  putting  coffee  upon  the 
free  list,  made  a  commercial  treaty  with  Brazil  by 
w^hich  special  advantages  of  some  kind  had  been  ob- 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  443 

• 

tained  in  return  for  taking  the  duty  off  coffee,  the 
state  of  our  trade  with  Brazil  would  have  been  much 
more  favorable  to  us  than  it  is  at  present.  It  was 
also  agreed  that  the  Hawaiian  Islands  would  not 
grant  to  any  other  nation  the  same  privileges  relative 
to  the  admission  of  articles  free  from  duty  as  was  se- 
cured to  the  United  States ;  and  it  was  also  agreed 
that  so  long  as  the  treaty  should  remain  in  force  the 
government  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  should  not  lease, 
or  otherwise  dispose  of,  or  place  any  lien  upon  any 
port,  harbor,  or  other  territory  in  its  dominions,  or 
grant  any  special  privilege  or  rights  of  usage  therein 
to  any  other  power,  state,  or  government.  This  stip- 
ulation was  more  of  a  political  than  of  a  commercial 
nature. 

In  order  to  carry  out  these  provisions  of  the  treaty 
the  Hawaiian  government  was  obliged  to  submit  to 
considerable  loss.  For,  in  order  to  satisfy  Great 
Britain,  which  claimed  the  privileges  of  the  most 
favored  nation,  a  remission  of  fifteen  per  cent,  was 
granted  on  the  duties  fixed  by  the  general  tariff  laws 
of  the  kingdom.  In  a  subsequent  treaty  with  the 
German  empire,  on  September  19,  1879,  it  was  stipu- 
lated that  the  special  advantages  granted  to  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  consideration  of  equiva- 
lent advantages,  could  not  be  claimed  by  Germany ; 
and  a  similar  declaration  was  inserted  in  a  treaty 
made  with  Portugal. 


444  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

• 

The  result  of  this  treaty  has  been,  on  the  whole,  in 
spite  of  some  slight  drawbacks,  exceedingly  favorable 
to  the  United  States,  and  the  efforts  to  denounce  it 
have  thus  far  failed.  The  exports  from  the  United 
States  to  Hawaii  increased  from  $8o9,(XX)  in  1876  to 
$3,523,000  in  1884;  and  the  imports  increased,  in 
like  way,  from  $1,383,000  in  1876,  to  $7,926,000  in 
1884.  The  population  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  being 
about  seventy  thousand,  the  exports  from  the  United 
States  amounted  to  about  fifty  dollars  per  head,  while 
the  consumption  in  1876  was  only  $12.66  per  head. 
The  imports  of  American  goods  free  of  duty  into 
Hawaii  in  1883  amounted  to  over  fifty-six  per  cent, 
of  the  total  amount,  being  $3,169,000  out  of  $5,624,- 
000.  There  would  seem  to  be  an  excess  of  imports 
into  the  United  States  from  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
over  the  exports  of  nearly  four  and  a  half  million  dol- 
lars ;  but  this  amount  is  not  returned  to  the  Sandwich 
Islands  in  coin,  because  it  is  paid  in  this  country.  It 
simply  goes  from  the  hands  of  one  American  to 
those  of  another.  In  fact,  commercially  speaking,  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  have  become  almost  an  American 
possession.  Mr.  Daggett,  the  American  minister,  re- 
ported in  October,  1883,  that  fully  two-thirds  of  the 
sugar  plantations  in  the  Islands  belonged  to  citizens 
of  the  United  States ;  out  of  an  aggregate  valuation 
of  over  fifteen  million  dollars  Americans  owned  over 
ten  million  dollars.     In   1884  ninety-five  per  cent,  of 


COMMERCIAL   TREATIES.  445 

the  total  commerce  between  the  United  States  was 
effected  on  American  vessels,  and  this  brought  with 
it  the  purchase  of  stores  in  the  United  States.  While 
the  Hawaiian  commercial  marine  has  greatly  increased 
since  the  signature  of  the  treaty,  nearly  all  of  the  new 
vessels  were  of  American  build. 

It  has  been  urged  against  this  treaty  that  the  price 
of  sugar  is  no  lower  in  the  Pacific  States  than  it  was 
before  the  treaty,  or  than  it  is  in  the  East.  This  is 
not  due  to  the  working  of  the  treaty  itself,  but  to 
other  circumstances.  So  long  as  Manilla  sugar,  that 
is,  the  sugar  imported  from  the  Philippine  Islands  is 
burdened  with  the  duty,  the  cost  of  the  Hawaiian 
sugar,  which  is  entirely  bought  up  by  sugar  refin- 
ers, and  only  sold  to  the  consumer  in  a  refined  state, 
will  be  about  the  same  as  the  cost  of  sugar  refined 
from  the  Manilla  raw  sugar.  Competition  from  the 
Eastern  States  is  shut  out  by  contracts  made  by 
these  same  sugar  refiners  with  the  railway  compan- 
ies, who,  it  is  stated,  receive  the  value  of  the  freight 
which  they  would  take  for  the  transportation  of 
sugar  from  the  Eastern  States,  with  a  handsome 
bonus  besides,  on  condition  that  they  shall  transport 
none  at  all. 

In  speaking  of  the  recent  commercial  arrangement 
with  Spain,  and  especially  of  our  trade  with  the 
Spanish  Antilles,  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  account 
what  difificulties  had  hitherto  been  placed  in  the  way 


44^  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

of  our  commerce.  The  old  colonial  system — that  is, 
which  considered  the  trade  with  the  colonies  to  be  a 
simple  extension  of  the  coasting  trade — had  always 
been  kept  up  by  Spain,  and  a  system  of  discriminat- 
ing duties  had  been  placed  on  imports,  especially  in 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  designed  to  favor  trade  with 
the  mother  country,  as  well  as  to  favor  Spanish  ves- 
sels trading  between  the  colonies  and  either  home  or 
foreign  ports.  There  were  four  distinct  tariff  rates 
applicable  to  these  islands.  What  is  called  the  first 
column  applied  only  to  goods  brought  from  Spain 
under  the  Spanish  flag.  The  second  fixed  duties  at 
about  double  the  rate  of  the  first  on  goods  of  Spanish 
origin  taken  in  foreign  vessels.  The  third,  about 
treble  the  rate  of  the  first,  applied  to  goods  brought 
from  any  foreign  country  under  the  Spanish  flag.  The 
fourth  column  contained  duties  four  or  five  times 
greater  than  the  most  favored  rate  of  the  first  column, 
and  were  applied  to  foreign  goods  brought  to  Cuba 
or  Porto  Rico  under  any  foreign  flag.  As  from  two- 
thirds  to  three-fourths  of  the  whole  export  trade 
of  the  Spanish  Antilles  had  been  with  the  United 
States,  and  as  the  American  sailing  vessels,  being 
better  fitted  for  the  traffic,  had  obtained  a  great  share 
of  the  carrying  trade,  notwithstanding  discriminating 
duties,  this  discrimination  of  tariffs  bore  heavily  on 
the  trade  with  the  United  States. 

Among  other  regulations  imposed  by  the  rule  of 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  447 

the  particularists  and  protectionists  which  obtained 
such  strength  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  an 
act  of  Congress  of  June  30,  1864,  imposed  ten  per 
cent.,  ad  valorem,  in  addition  to  all  other  duties,  on 
merchandise  imported  in  any  ships  or  vessels  not  of 
the  United  States.  This  discriminating  duty  was  of 
course  not  applicable  to  any  countries  which  were  en- 
titled by  treaties  or  by  acts  of  Congress  to  the  same 
privileges  as  vessels  of  the  United  States.  There 
was  no  treaty  with  Spain  on  this  subject,  and  there- 
fore the  ten  per  cent,  discriminating  duty  was  imposed 
on  all  articles  brought  from  Spain  or  the  Spanish 
colonies  to  the  United  States  in  Spanish  ships.  Sub- 
sequently, however,  by  a  series  of  partial  agreements, 
this  discriminating  duty  was  abolished  as  concerns 
Spain  itself,  and  all  the  Spanish  possessions,  except 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  and  this  exception  was  an- 
nounced by  the  proclamation  of  the  President  of 
December  19,  187 1.  Spain  considered  this  law  as  an 
unfriendly  act,  and  retaliated  by  imposing,  even  on 
merchandise  carried  in  vessels  bearing  the  Spanish 
flag,  the  same  duties  as  if  they  had  been  carried  under 
a  foreign  flag.  This  was  directed  solely  against  the 
United  States,  for  merchandise  coming  from  any 
other  country  would  pay  the  duties  fixed  by  the  third 
column  of  the  tariff,  that  is,  from  thirty  to  sixty  per 
cent.  less.  But  against  the  products  of  the  United 
States  the  discrimination  which  had   hitherto  been 


448  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

partial  was  made  total.  From  that  time  on  there 
were  protracted  negotiations  to  get  rid  of  this  dis- 
criminating duty ;  but  the  Spaniards  refused  to  re- 
move it  until  we  had  removed  the  discriminating 
duties  imposed  by  the  act  of  1864,  and  the  President 
was  only  empowered  to  remove  these  in  cases  where 
other  countries  had  removed  their  discriminating 
duties. 

Besides  this,  the  Spanish  government  had  imposed 
what  was  practically  an  export  duty  on  articles  sent 
from  the  United  States  to  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  by 
refusing  to  verify  ships'  manifests  until  a  certain  tax 
was  paid,  based  upon  the  tonnage  of  the  cargo  and 
not  upon  the  clerical  service  rendered.  This  was 
paid  to  the  Spanish  consul  before  the  vessels  could 
clear  for  Cuba  or  Porto  Rico.  We  protested  against 
this  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not,  properly  speaking, 
a  consular  fee,  but  that  it  was  a  tax  on  exports  from 
the  United  States,  such  as  under  the  Constitution 
our  Government  was  expressly  prohibited  from  levy- 
ing. 

Furthermore,  a  heavy  import  duty  had  been  im- 
posed on  Cuba  on  live  fish  brought  to  the  island  in 
foreign  vessels,  which  was  practically  prohibitory,  and 
nearly  destroyed  a  lucrative  industry  pursued  by  the 
fishermen  of  Florida.  Owing  to  the  nearness  of 
Florida  to  Cuba  Spanish  vessels  would  clear  from 
Havana  for  a  coast  port,  and  would  then  go  to  the 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  449 

coast  of  Florida  or  into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  fish, 
and  introduce  the  product  as  if  caught  on  the  Cuban 
coast ;  while  American  vessels  with  the  same  cargo 
were  subjected  to  this  heavy  duty. 

Owing  to  the  erroneous  classification  of  our  diplo- 
matic posts,  which  insists  on  regarding  the  legation 
to  Madrid  as  one  of  the  second  class,  instead  of  being, 
what  it  really  is,  our  second  diplomatic  pJost,  in  im- 
portance inferior  only  to  the  legation  at  London ;  and 
owing  also  to  the  system  under  which  diplomatic  ap- 
pointments have  been  made,  so  that  if  by  chance  a 
good  or  experiended  man  were  sent  to  Madrid  he 
was  soon  replaced  by  a  hack  politician,  neither  intel- 
ligent nor  experienced,  it  was  impossible  to  make 
headway  in  our  negotiations.  Fortunately  for  our 
interests  the  Government  finally  sent  to  Madrid  Mr. 
John  W.  Foster,  who  had  already  had  several  years' 
experience  as  minister  to  Mexico,  and  subsequently 
to  St.  Petersburg,  who  understood  the  language  and 
the  people,  and  who  happened  to  be  well  acquainted 
with  the  state  of  our  trade  with  the  West  Indies.  He 
succeeded,  on  January  2,  1884,  in  making  an  agree- 
ment, in  the  nature  of  a  modus  vivendi,  between  the 
United  States  and  Spain,  by  which  the  differential 
flag  duty  was  abolished,  and  articles  coming  from  the 
United  States  paid  the  duties  imposed  by  the  third 
instead  of  the  fourth  column  of  the  tariff ;  by  which 
the  duty  on  live  fish  was  made  void  for  the  United 


4 so  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

States;  and  by  which  the  Spanish  consular  officers 
ceased  to  impose  or  collect  tonnage  fees  on  the  car- 
goes of  vessels  leaving  the  ports  of  the  United  States 
for  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico.  The  United  States  at  the 
same  time  agreed  to  remove  the  extra  ten  per  cent, 
duty  under  the  act  of  1864,  and  perfect  equality  of 
treatment  between  the  said  Spanish  provinces  and 
the  United  States  was  established,  thus  removing  all 
extra  duties  or  discrimination  in  general  as  to  other 
countries  having  the  treatment  of  the  favored  nation. 
The  two  countries  at  the  same  time  bound  themselves 
to  begin  negotiations  for  a  complete  treaty  of  com- 
merce and  navigation.  For  this  arrangement  an- 
other one,  varying  in  some  slight  matters,  and  leaving 
out  the  agreement  for  treaty  negotiations,  was  sub- 
stituted on  February  13,  1884. 

Subsequently  Mr.  Foster  was  successful  in  nego- 
tiating a  commercial  treaty,  which  was  signed  on  No- 
vember 18,  1884,  which  in  general  put  American  ves- 
sels and  American  trade  on  the  same  footing  with 
Spanish  trade,  and  contained  certain  stipulations 
with  regard  to  the  commerce  of  the  United  States 
which  were  not  granted  to  other  foreign  countries. 

Apart  from  reductions  of  duties  the  treaty  with 
Spain  is  remarkable,  being  the  most  perfect  commer- 
cial treaty  in  all  its  provisions  that  has  ever  been 
signed  by  the  United  States,  and  redounds  greatly 
to  the  credit  of  the  negotiator.     All  restrictions  and 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  45 1 

technical  peculiarities  to  which  American  exporters 
and  shippers  had  been  subjected  for  many  years  were 
abolished,  and  it  was  arranged  that  foreign  products 
sent  from  the  United  States  in  American  vessels 
should  have  the  same  privileges  as  though  shipped  in 
Spanish  vessels.  Tonnage  dues  on  both  sides  were 
completely  abolished,  as  well  as  consular  fees,  which, 
especially  on  the  Spanish  side,  had  been  a  heavy  bur- 
den. The  treaty  of  1795  did  not  contain  many  of 
the  stipulations  of  more  modern  treaties  with  regard 
to  the  rights  of  persons,  property,  and  commerce  to 
the  disadvantage  of  our  interest.  These  defects  were 
fully  supplied,  and  the  result  of  this  treaty  would  be 
to  prevent  most  of  the  complaints  of  American  prop- 
erty-owners, such  as  have  arisen  in  the  recent  insur- 
rections in  Cuba.  This  treaty  differed  from  former 
reciprocity  treaties,  which  provided  only  for  the  free 
admission  of  certain  goods,  in  providing,  also,  for  the 
favored  admission  of  an  additional  list  of  articles  at  a 
specified  reduction  of  duties  from  the  existing  cus- 
toms tariffs.  It  was  arranged  that  these  products 
should  be  exchanged  at  the  lower  rate  of  duties  only 
when  carried  in  American  or  Spanish  vessels,  which 
is  certainly  an  important  provision  for  the  develop- 
ment of  our  shipping.  It  was  forbidden  to  lay  ex- 
port duties  in  either  country  on  the  articles  admitted 
free  of  duty,  and  the  export  duties  imposed  in  Cuba 
on  sugar  were  reduced  to  the  lowest  rate  consistent 


452  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

with  the  obligations  of  the  Cuban  bond-holders,  to 
whom  these  revenues  had  been  pledged,  that  is,  one- 
sixth  of  a  cent  per  pound.  No  greater  internal 
taxes  were  to  be  levied  on  American  products  in  the 
Spanish  islands  than  on  native  products.  This  im- 
portant provision,  which  is  now  generally  inserted  in 
American  commercial  treaties,  was  to  prevent  the  im- 
position of  municipal  dues  and  what  are  called  "  taxes 
on  consumption,"  which  amount  to  the  same  thing  as 
customs  dues.  Such  a  provision  was  not  inserted  in 
the  Mexican  treaty,  although  it  was  admitted  that 
the  "  taxes  on  consumption  "  imposed  in  the  various 
provinces,  and  in  the  city  of  Mexico  itself,  frequently 
doubled  or  trebled  the  customs  duties. 

While  in  the  treaty  with  Mexico  it  was  provided 
that  in  case  of  any  important  changes  in  the  customs 
duties  of  either  country  there  would  be  a  right  to  de- 
nounce the  treaty,  this  right  was  specially  given  up 
by  Article  24  of  the  Spanish  treaty,  and  each  power 
was  allowed  to  make  such  changes  in  their  customs, 
tariff,  and  navigation  dues  as  they  may  see  proper,  and 
to  extend  to  other  powers  freedom  of  duties,  reduc- 
tions, and  favors  equal  or  similar  to  those  stipulated 
in  the  treaty  under  the  same  or  similar  conditions, 
the  principle  being  maintained,  on  which  we  had  be- 
fore insisted,  that  the  most-favored-nation  clause  of 
treaties  cannot  be  applied  in  its  unrestricted  sense  to 
reciprocity  conventions ;  but  that,  when  two  nations 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  453 

Stipulate  for  special  favors  or  reciprocal  reduction  of 
duties  upon  specified  conditions,  third  powers  cannot 
claim  or  enjoy  like  favors  except  upon  the  same  or 
equivalent  conditions.  It  was  agreed,  however,  by- 
Article  23,  that  any  favors  or  concessions  granted  to  a 
third  power  could  be  enjoyed  by  the  other  party  to 
this  treaty  gratuitously,  if  the  concession  shall  have 
been  gratuitous,  or  upon  giving  the  same  or  other 
equivalent  compensation,  if  the  concession  should  be 
conditional. 

By  a  protocol  annexed  to  the  treaty  it  was  agreed 
that  the  modus  vivendi  of  January  2  and  February 
15,  1884,  should  terminate,  the  result  of  which  was 
that  while  we  gained  by  the  treaty  all  of  the  advan- 
tages which  we  had  received  by  the  modus  vivendi^ 
they  terminated  as  far  as  other  countries  were  con- 
cerned. 

The  important  items  on  the  list  of  articles  to  be 
admitted  either  free  or  at  a  reduction  of  duty  were  of 
Cuban  produce — sugar  and  tobacco.  As  to  sugar, 
all  grades  not  above  No.  16  of  the  Dutch  standard 
were  to  be  admitted  into  the  United  States  free  of 
duty,  and  on  tobacco  in  general  the  duty  was  reduced 
by  fifty  per  cent.  The  list  of  American  goods  ad- 
mitted into  the  Spanish  colonies  at  either  free  or 
reduced  rates  was  very  much  greater ;  and  the  con- 
cessions made  were  such  as  to  be  very  beneficial  to 
our  export  trade.      The  duty  on  petroleum,  for  ex- 


454  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY. 

ample,  was  reduced  from  $6.40  to  $1  per  hundred 
kilogr. ;  on  wheat,  from  $3.15  to  50  cents  per.  hun- 
dred kilogr. ;  on  flour,  from  $4.70  to  $2.50,  and 
$1.65  a  barrel,  not  to  mention  the  very  great  reduc- 
tion on  manufactured  goods  of  all  kinds. 

This  treaty  was  submitted  to  the  Senate  on  Decem- 
ber 10,  1884,  and  was  made  public  about  the  same 
time.  Some  of  its  provisions  excited  considerable 
opposition,  especially  on  the  part  of  the  particularists 
and  protectionists,  who  feared  lest  the  sugar  and  to- 
bacco interests  might  be  affected.  As  far  as  the  sugar 
refiners  were  concerned  there  could  be  little  question. 
Sugar  duties  are  now  arranged  so  as  to  prevent  the 
consumption  of  any  but  refined  sugar.  So  heavy  a 
duty  is  placed  on  the  higher  grades  of  unrefined  sugar 
that  we  no  longer  find  in  use  here  those  brown  and 
half-brown  sugars  which  were  formerly  so  common, 
and  which  are  so  much  liked  and  so  much  consumed 
in  England.  The  only  way  in  which  the  treaty  was 
not  wholly  in  the  interest  of  the  sugar  refiners  was  in 
admitting  the  grades  of  sugar  between  No.  13  and 
No.  16,  and  it  was  thought  that  if  the  treaty  could 
be  amended  by  substituting  No.  13  for  No.  16  there 
would  be  no  interference  whatever  with  the  business 
of  the  sugar  refiners. 

What  the  sugar-refining  interests  amounts  to  we 
may  see  from  a  letter  from  various  leading  merchants 
in  New  York  to  Senator  Miller,  the  Chairman  of  the 


COMMERCIAL    TREATIES.  455 

Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  dated  New 
York,  December  28,  1884.  In  the  year  1880,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  census  returns,  there  were  employed  in 
all  the  sugar  and  molasses  refining  establishments  of 
the  United  States  five  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
thirty-two  men  and  twenty-five  children.  The  wages 
paid  were  $2,875,032.  The  refined  product  for  the 
year  was  worth  the  enormous  sum  of  $155,484,915. 
The  total  cost  for  materials  was  $144,698,499,  and, 
adding  the  cost  of  wages,  the  total  cost  of  the  manu- 
factured product  was  $147,573,531,  leaving  the  sum 
of  $8,000,000  for  the  interest  on  capital  invested  and 
for  profit. 

But  objections  also  were  made  to  the  treaty  on  the 
ground  that  as  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  supplied  us 
with  only  about  two-thirds  of  the  amount  of  sugar 
used,  the  price  of  sugar  in  the  market,  to  the  con- 
sumer, would  remain  about  the  same  so  long  as  any 
amount  whatever  paid  duty,  and  the  result  would  be 
that  the  revenue  which  the  United  States  gave  up  by 
taking  off  the  duties  on  Cuban  and  Porto  Rico  sugar 
would  simply  go  into  the  hands  of  the  Spanish  plant- 
ers in  the  shape  of  increased  profits.  In  one  sense 
this  is  true,  but  it  could  only  remain  true  until  Cuba 
and  Porto  Rico  were  enabled  to  supply  us  with  the 
whole  amount  of  sugar  that  we  need,  or  until  other 
similar  commercial  treaties  were  made  with  other 
sugar-producing  countries.      These    last   are   chiefly 


45^  AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY, 

three  :  other  Spanish  possessions,  especially  the  Phil- 
ippine Islands,  the  British  West  Indies  and  Guiana, 
and  Brazil.  It  was  claimed  by  many  who  were  con- 
versant with  the  subject  that  the  impulse  given  to  the 
sugar  industry  in  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  would  be  suf- 
ficient within  one,  or  at  most  two  years,  to  supply  us 
with  the  whole  amount  that  would  be  consumed, 
although  with  cheaper  sugar  its  use  would  be  greatly 
extended. 

It  would  be  wrong  to  consider  the  commercial 
treaty  with  Spain  as  standing  alone,  but  it  should  be 
considered  as  forming  part  of  a  system.  A  similar 
treaty  was  concluded  at  about  the  same  time  with  St. 
Domingo,  and  another  one  was  in  process  of  negotia- 
tion with  the  British  West  India  Islands.  Unfortu- 
nately these  negotiations  all  took  place  toward  the 
close  of  an  administration,  and  another  party  coming 
into  power  was  unwilling  to  be  hampered  by  the  acts 
of  its  predecessor.  The  result  was  that  the  Spanish 
treaty  was  withdrawn  from  the  Senate  before  being 
acted  upon,  for  further  consideration  and  possibly 
amendment ;  and  when  this  occurred  the  British  gov- 
ernment broke  off  negotiations  for  a  similar  treaty 
with  their  West  India  Islands. 

The  question  as  to  whether  it  is  desirable  entirely 
to  take  off  the  duties  on  sugar,  which  are  a  convenient 
means  of  raising  revenue,  is  not  my  province  to  dis- 
cuss ;  but  if  those  duties  are  either  to  be  removed  or 


COMMERCIAL   TREATIES.  45/ 

lowered,  it  would  seem  better  to  use  them  as  a  means 
of  obtaining  concessions  from  other  powers,  rather 
than  to  throw  away  all  the  advantages  which  we  now 
possess,  by  lowering  or  abolishing  the  sugar  duties  by 
a  general  law. 


INDEX 


Adams,  John,  187;  appointed  com- 
missioner to  treat  with  Barbary 
powers,  197  ;  his  account  of  inter- 
view with  Tripolitan  ambassador, 
ib.;  200,  201,  205,  226,  287 ;  his  say- 
ing relative  to  the  fisheries,  405  ; 
correspondence  regarding  fish- 
eries, 408. 

,  John   Quincy,    8,    138,    140, 

155,  187,  206,  241,  2-17,  283,  296, 
297,  298,  300,  374.  377,  378.  381. 
432. 

Aberdeen,  Lord,  250,  412,  413. 

Addington,  Mr.,  412. 

yEgidi,  Dr.,  proposition  of,  401. 

Alexander,  Emperor,  294. 

Algiers,  slaves  in,  instances  of,  194 ; 
treaty  of  France  with,  ib.  ;  cost 
of  peace  with,  to  Spain,  195 ; 
Thomas  Barclay  and  John  Lamb 
appointed  to  treat  with,  197,  203  ; 
failure  of  Lamb's  negotiations 
with,  205;  Mr.  Jefferson,  Richard 
O'Brien,  and  John  Quincy  Adams 
on,  z'/^.— Treaty  with,  proposed  by 
General  Washington,  208 ;  Ad- 
miral Paul  Jones  sent  to  treat  with, 
ib.;  failure  of  treaty  with,  209 ; 
number  of  American  prisoners  in, 
ib. ;  English  and  Portuguese  truce 
with,  210 ;  Mr.  Church  on,  210 
note  :  petitions  of  American  cap- 
tives in,  to  Congress,  211 ;  Donald- 
son's treaty  with,  213  ;  total  cost  of 
treaty  with,  ib.\  war  with,  222; 
draft  for  treaty  with,  ib.;  dec- 
laration made  by  Decatur  and 
William  Shaler  to,  ib. ;  treaties 
with,  by  Lord  Exmouth,  228  ; 
bombardment  of,  by  English  and 
Dutch,  229  ;  Christian  slaves  given 
up  by,  ib. ;  French  conquest  of, 
230 ;  arrival  of  American  squad- 


ron at,  under  Commodore  Chaun- 
cey,  231  ;  treaty  with,  ratified, 
ib.\  treaty  of  France  with,  report 
of  Mr.  Jefferson  on,  194. 

Algiers,  Dey  of,  armed  vessels  sent 
to,  as  arrearages  by  United  States, 
214  ;  account  of  presentation  to, 
by  William  Eaton,  ib.  ;  action 
of  the,  with  regard  to  frigate 
George  Washington,  221  ;  cost  to 
United  States  and  satisfaction, 
ib.  ;  grievances  of  the,  ib.  ;  no- 
table reply  of  Decatur  and  Will- 
iam Shafer  to,  222  ;  terms  of  treaty 
signed  by,  223 ;  Lord  Exmouth 
and  the,  228,  229 ;  action  taken 
by  the  Congress  of  Aix-la-Cha- 
pelle  against,  230 ;  declares 
treaty  with  us  no  longer  binding, 
231;  message  to  James  Madison, 
ib.  ;  President  Madison's  reply 
to,  ib. 

Ambassador,  Tripolitan,  meeting 
between,  and  Jefferson,  197;  Mr. 
Adams'  account,  198  ;  price  de- 
manded by,  for  perpetual  peace, 
199. 

Ambassadors,  their  rights,  their 
rank,  108  ;  Calvo  on,  no  ;  Pro- 
fessor Martens  on,  in;  Baron 
de  Neumann  on,  112;  difference 
between,  and  Ministers  Plenipo- 
tentiary, 116. 

Amazon,  river,  and  tributaries 
opened  to  commerce  of  the 
world,  343  ;  pamphlet  of  Lieuten- 
ant Maury  on,  translated  and 
circulated  in  Peru,  ib. 

Anthony,  Senator,  439. 

Appropriations,  Chairman  of  Stand- 
ing Committee  on,  his  position, 
4- 

Archives,  36 ;    rules  regarding  ac- 


46o 


INDEX. 


cess  to  them,  39  ;  American  doc- 
uments in  foreign,  38. 

Argentine  Confederation,  treaty  of 
Great  Britain,  France,  and  United 
States  with,  for  free  navigation 
of  rivers,  322  ;  constitution  of, 
modelled  after  that  of  United 
States,  323. 

Armed  neutrality,  commercial 
treaty  of  United  States  with 
France  precedes  declaration  of, 
369 ;  first  idea  of,  belongs  to 
Russia,  ib.  ;  ascribed  to  Freder- 
ick the  Great,  ib.  ;  Catharine  II. 
relative  to,  ib.  ;  Wheaton,  and 
Baron  von  Goertz  on,  ib.  ;  his- 
tory of,  given  to  light,  370;/^/'<?/ 
date  of  preliminary  steps,  371. 

Armstrong,  General,  148. 

Ashburton,  Lord,  254. 

Assistant  Secretaries  of  State, 
their  positions,  10 ;  their  duties, 
ib. ,  20. 

Astor,  John  Jacob,  294. 


Bancroft,  Mr.,  113,  429. 

Banks,  General,  143. 

Barbary  powers,  ransom  of  captives 
from  ;  Goethe's  description  of  col- 
lection for,  194  ;  means  taken  to 
protect  United  States  vessels 
from  depredations  of,  195  note, 
196  note:  capture  of  schooner 
Maria  and  ship  Dauphin  by,  196  ; 
commission  issued  to  Mr.  Jef- 
ferson, Mr.  Adams,  and  Dr. 
Franklin  to  treat  with,  197; 
opinions  of  Adams  and  Jefferson 
on  war  with,  200,  201,  202  ;  whole 
cost  of  buying  freedom  of  our 
ships  from,  218  ;  question  of  put- 
ting down,  brought  before  Con- 
gress of  Vienna,  225 ;  English  pol- 
icy, ib.,  226;  Chateaubriand's 
proposal  concerning,  228  ;  United 
States  the  first  to  obtain  abolition 
of  presents  to,  and  proper  treat- 
ment of  prisoners  by,  232  ;  expen- 
diture for  intercourse  with,  ib. 

States,  Lord   Exmouth  sent 

by  British  government  to,  225  ; 
Lord  Sheffield  and  Smollett  on, 
227. 

Barbour,  Mr.,  383. 

Barclay,  Thomas,  treaty  with  Em- 
peror of  Morocco,  203. 


Barlow,  Joel,  associated  with 
Joseph  Donaldson  and  Hum- 
phreys, 213  ;  treaty  with   Tripoli, 

215- 

Bayard,  Mr.,  417,  418. 

Barrere,  M.,  359. 

Barrier  treaty,  the,  by  whom  made, 
345  ;  end  of,  ib. 

Black  Sea,  when  closed,  answer  of 
the  Porte  to  Peter  the  Great  con- 
cerning, 317  ;  article  in  treaties  of 
Paris  and  London  relative  to,  318; 
United  States  maintain  their  right 
to  send  ships  of  war  into,  ib. 

Brazil,  government  of,  objects  to 
treaty  regarding  navigation  of  riv- 
ers, 324 ;  Mr.  Marcy  on,  325. 

Bright,  Mr.,  166. 

Brougham,  Lord,  229,  236. 

Brunnow,  Baron,  395,  396. 

Buchanan,  James,  8  ;  142,  312,  382, 
385,  386,  398,  435,  436. 

Buenos  Ayres,  protest  of  province 
of,  against  treaty  of  Argentine 
Confederation  concerning  the 
Amazon,  325. 

Bulgaria,  need  of  American  diplo- 
matic agent  in,  120. 

Bureaux,  Consular,  10;  Department 
of  State,  ib.;  diplomatic,  ib.\  Law, 
Library,  Rolls,  Statistics,  n  ;  In- 
dex, 12. 


Calhoun,  Mr.,  22,  434, 

Caiiedo,  E. ,  439. 

Canning,  Mr.,  244,  246,  302. 

Capitulations,  consular,  privileges 
so  called,  60. 

Cass,  Lewis,  8,  143,  252,  253,  255, 
260,  261,  262,  398. 

Castlereagh,  Lord,  228,  240,  241,  243. 

Catherine  II. ,  369,  371. 

Cavour,  Count,  397. 

Chairman  of  the  Standing  Commit- 
tee on  Appropriations,  his  posi- 
tion, 4;  of  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means,  ib.  ;   his  privilege,  5. 

Charge's  d'affaires,  when  instituted, 
their  diplomatic  rank,  108. 

Chateaubriand,  228,  382. 

Chauncey,  Commodore,  arrival  at 
Algiers,  231. 

China,  trade  with,  carried  on  by 
American  vessels  until  1814,  292; 
entrance  to  Russian  ships  for- 
bidden in  ports  of,  ib. 


INDEX. 


461 


Christianople,  treaty  of,  regulates 
Sound  dues,  306  ;  tariff  imposed 
by,  ib. 

Civilization  in  South  America  de- 
pendent on  river  systems,  319 

Clarendon,  Lord,  385,  386,  397. 

Clay,  Henry,  8,  285,  286,  307. 

,  J.  Randolph.  329,   330,  331, 

333.  335.  338,  339.  340,  341.  343- 

Cleveland,  President,  100,  366. 

Cobden,  Mr.,  166. 

Columbia,  ship,  arrived  in  Nootka 
Sound,  in  1788,  292  ;  first  vessel 
to  carry  American  flag  around 
the  world,  ib. 

Commercial  relations,  Mr.  Pitt's 
bill,  1783,  opposition  of  Mr.  Eden, 
425  ;  our,  with  England,  attempt 
to  regulate,  1794,  426,  428  ;  Mr, 
Wheaton's,  with  Germany,  431 ; 
dealings  with  Zollverein,  432  ; 
Mr.  Webster's  report  on  our, 
with  Zollverein,  433 ;  with  Ha- 
waiian Islands,  444  ;    with   Spain, 

• treaties,    defined   policy   of 

United  States  regarding,  422  ; 
with  France,  1778,  425  ;  with 
Netherlands,  ib.  ;  Mr.  Monroe 
and  Mr.  Pinkney  commissioned 
to  negotiate  a,  with  England,  in 
1806,  427  ;  this,  not  ratified,  428  ; 
the,  of  1815,  with  Great  Britain 
advantageous,  renewed  in  1818, 
1828,  428  note ;  Reciprocity  treaty, 
1854,  terminates  in  1866,  430;  Mr. 
Wheaton's,  with  Zollverein,  1844, 
433 ;  message  of  President  on 
this,  rejection  by  Senate,  Mr. 
Calhoun  on,  434  ;  Canadian  Reci- 
procity, with  Great  Britain,  1854, 
435;  >/Ir.  McLane  sent  to  Mexico 
to  conclude,  in  1859,  436 ;  de- 
mands of  United  States,  impor- 
tant articles  and  stipulations,  ib.  ; 
opposition  to  Mexican,  by  Mr, 
Wigfall  and  Mr.  Simmons,  never 
ratified,  439  ;  General  Grant  and 
Mr.  William  H.  Trescot  commis- 
sioned to  negotiate  a,  with  Mexi- 
co, 1882,  440 ;  diplomatic  view 
of  Mexican,  441  ;  Hawaiian,  1875, 
contains  one  stipulation  of  politi- 
cal nature,  443 ;  United  States, 
'with  Spain,  arranged  by  Mr, 
Foster,  1884;  this,  mostperfectone 
ever  signed  by  United  States,  450. 


Commissioners,  or  commissaries, 
119  ;  diplomatic  representatives, 
sent  to  settle  special  questions, 
ib. ;  their  rank,  ib.  ;  as  political 
agents,  ib.;  their  rank  as  such,  ib. 

Committee,  on  Appropriations,  re- 
cent change  in  rules  of  House 
regarding,  30 ;  on  Expenditure, 
how  elected,  23  ;  duties,  powers, 
27 ;  on  Foreign  Affairs,  House 
and  Senate,  24  ;  reports  of,  speci- 
men, 28  7tote  ;  Standing  commit- 
tees, their  power,  23, 

Congo,  Free  State  of  the,  estab- 
lished by  act  at  Conference  of 
Berlin,  1884,  365  ;  African  Inter- 
national Association  merged  in, 
ib.  ;  extract  from  President  Cleve- 
land's message  relative  to,  366  ; 
J.  A.  Kasson  on,  ib.\  North  Amer- 
ican Review  on,  ib. 

River,    different  claims   to, 

364- 

,    Valley    of,     explored     by 

Henry  M.  Stanley,  364. 

Consul,  his  exequatur,  96  ;  its  ob- 
ject, ib.  ;  at  Palermo,  his  impor- 
tance, 68. 

Consul-General,  reports,  58 ;  at 
Shanghai,  66;  at  Matamoras,  67, 

Consular  appointments,  objections 
to  long  tenure  of,  161. 

clerks,  46,  84. 

courts,  need  of  reform  in  sys- 
tem of,  55. 

hierarchy,    abroad    and    at 


home,  81. 

Invoice  Book,  50. 

officer,  his  qualifications,  71 ; 


additional  qualifications,  75;  qual- 
ifications in  France,  73, 

officers,  privileges  of,  69. 

privileges,  or    capitulations, 


Regulations,  58. 

Reports,  printing  of  annual, 


60. 


32. 


salaries,  46. 

service,  expense  of,  17 ;    its 

growth,  84 ;  in  Belgium,  103 ; 
British,  its  efficiency,  93 ;  in 
France,  its  excellency  and  its  sal- 
aries, 94. 

System,  self-supporting,  92  ; 

need  of  reform  in,  ib. 

Treaty  with  France,  45. 

Consuls,  41  ;  duties,  44  ;  their  rights 


462 


INDEX. 


and  powers,  ih. ,62;  as  defined  in 
Wheaton's  International  Law,  44  ; 
in  William  Beach  I^awrence's 
Commentary  on  Wheaton,  ib.  ;  in 
shipping  ports,  53  ;  duties  in  non- 
Christian  countries,  59  ;  their 
number,  85  ;  salaries,  ib.  ;  fees, 
87  ;  authorized  to  employ  experts 
at  Lyons,  Zurich,  Horgen,  91. 

Corea,  treaty  with,  118;  diplomatic 
relations  with,  ib. 

Correspondence,  diplomatic,  34, 

Cushing,  Caleb,  45. 


Daggett,  Mr.,  444> 

Dallas,  Mr.,  262,  263,  303. 

Dana,  Richard  H. ,  Jr.,  416. 

Danube,  freedom  of  navigation  on, 
recognized  by  Austria  and  Tur- 
key, 352  ;  Articles  15  to  19  of 
Treaty  of  Pans  regarding,  353  ; 
three  different  regulations  applied 
to,  up  to  1871,  356  ;  change  made 
by  Treaty  of  Berlin,  ib.,  358 ;  de- 
cision of  European  Commission 
on  navigation  of,  358  ;  Mr.  Bar- 
rere's  proposal,  ib.,  359;  eight 
different  systems  for  regulation 
of,  361. 

-,   mouths  of,   allowed  to  fill 


up.  353 ;  possessed  by  Russia, 
352 ;  European  commission  for 
clearing,  353 ;  number  of  ship- 
wrecks in,  m  five  years,  356  ;  ac- 
tion of  Russia  relative  to,  360, 
361  ;  Russian,  exempted  from 
operation  of  European  commis- 
sion, 362. 

Dardanelles,  straits  of,  first  treaty 
for  free  navigation  of,  made  with 
Russia,  317  ;  treaties  with  Austria, 
Great  Britain,  and  France,  con- 
cerning, 318  ;  United  States  no 
treaty  rights  for  navigation  of, 
until  1830,  ib.  ;  treaty  of  1862  with 
United  States  concerning,  ib.  ; 
American  ships  of  war  and,  ib. 

Dayton,  Mr.,  400. 

Decatur,  Commodore,  as  lieutenant, 
destroys  frigate  Philadelphia,  219; 
negotiator  to  Algiers,  answer  to 
the  Dey,  222  ;  proceeds  to  Tunis, 
report  to  Secretary  of  Navy,  224. 

Delfosse,  Mr.  Maurice,  Belgian 
minister,  commissioner  Halifax 
award,  416. 


Denina,  Abbe,  269! 

Department  of  State,  when  created, 
7 ;  its  management,  15  ;  chief 
clerk,  16  ;  its  efficiency,  17 ;  sal- 
aries, 18  ;  Secretary  of;  4,  7,  18  ; 
his  duties,  19. 

Diplomacy,  the  first  use  of  the 
word,  106  ;  Calvo's  definition  of, 
ib.  \  Professor  Marten  on  the 
word,  131  ;  purposes  of,  ib. 

Diplomate,  106,  note. 

Diplomatic  agent,  an  American,  at 
Bucarest,  121. 

agents,   strictly    so  called, 

119,  120  ;  rules  for,  as  arranged  by 
Congress  of  Vienna,  108 ;  ac- 
cepted by  United  States,  107,  108 
7iote ;  as  classified  by  Congress  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle,  108 ;  system  of, 
164;  opinions  concerning  their 
use,  Wheaton  on,  ib.  ;  Lord  Palm- 
erston  on,  165-167  ;  Mr.  Bright 
and  Mr.  Cobden  on,  166. 

service,  expenditure  of  our 

foreign,  168,  efforts  to  reduce  it, 
ib.  ;  salaries  in,  inadequacy  of, 
184  ;  salaries  in,  Edward  Living- 
ston's report,  ib.  ;  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son's letter,  186 ;  John  Adams' 
and  John  Quincy  Adams'  let- 
ters, 187 ;  Mr.  Monroe's  letter, 
188 ;  Mr.  McLane's  and  Mr. 
Webster's  reports,  188  note ;  Mr. 
Wheaton's  letter,  189 ;  number 
of  persons  in,  177  ;  total  cost  of, 
during  fiscal  year  ending  June 
30,  1885,  178  ;  comparative  table 
showing  rank  and  salaries  in,  of 
United  States,  Great  Britain,  and 
France,  179  ;  examples  of,  com- 
bined, 170 ;  suggestion  that  we 
entirely  dispense  with,  '171  ;  du- 
ties, ib.  ;  pensions  abroad,  184. 

Diplomatists,  questions  of  rank  of, 
118  note ;  good  and  bad,  exam- 
ples of,  146,  147,  148,  148  note  ; 
greatest  annoyances  to,  162. 

Documents,  Executive,  34. 

Dominion  act,  its  amendment  re- 
stricting American  fishermen,  Mr. 
Fish's  action  on,  415. 

Donaldson,  Joseph,  consul  at  Tu- 
nis and  Tripoli,  authc»rized  to  em- 
ploy Skjoldebrand,  213 ;  concludes 
treaty  with  Algiers,  ib. 

Duties,  consular  and  diplomatic, 
171  ;  consular,  have  not  hindered 


INDEX. 


463 


diplomatic  work,  172  ;  such  uni- 
ons no  novelty,  174  ;  examples  in 
foreign  diplomacy,  ib.,  175. 

Eaton,  William,  consul  at  Tunis, 
description  of  his  presentation  to 
Dey  of  Algiers,  214  ;  authorized 
to  treat  with  Bey  of  Tunis,  217  ; 
letter  of,  219 ;  march  overland 
from  Alexandria  to  Derna  with 
ex-Bashaw  Hamet,  ib. 

Eden,  Mr.  (Lord  Auckland),  425. 

Elgin,  Lord,  treaty  of  commerce, 
430;     Reciprocity    Treaty,     414, 

Embassy,  an,  121. 

Envoys,  when  instituted,  their  dip- 
lomatic rank,  108  ;  Calvo  on,  no. 

Extraordinary,  few  in  num- 
ber in  United  States,  112. 

Erie,  slave-ship,  commander  of,  ex- 
ecuted, 264  ;  only  case  of  punish- 
ment by  death,  ib. 

Etiquette,  questions  of,  13;  ques- 
tions of,  in  diplomatic  service,  138, 

139- 
Everett,  Edward,  8,  250,  256,  412, 

413- 
Exequatur,  a  consul's,  96 ;    of  Mr. 
Hopkins,     consul    to    Paraguay, 
withdrawn,  236, 


Fillmore,  President,  429. 

Fish,  Mr.,  34,  135,  415. 

Commission,  413,  416,  418. 

Fisheries,  the.  Article  3  in,  treaty 
of  September  3,  1873,  404 ;  re- 
mark of  John  Adams  concern- 
ing, 405  ;  English  on  the,  treaty, 
406  ;  effect  of  War  of  1812  on,  ib. ; 
reason  of  silence  regarding  the, 
in  treaty  of  Ghent,  407  ;  Mr.  Pom- 
eroy  on  commissioners  of,  408  ; 
conflicts  concerning,  ib.\  treaty 
under  Mr.  Adams,  1818,  ib., 
rights  and  privileges  of,  in  first 
article,  ib. ;  omission  of  word  bait 
afterward  an  obstacle  in,  410; 
statute  of  Parliament,  1819,  for, 
ib.;  commission  of  arbitration, 
1853,  413  ;  permanent  legislation 
regarding,  414 ;  change  in  char- 
acter of,  ib.'.  Article  1  on,  in 
Reciprocity  Treaty,  ib.\  disputes 
on,  renewed  at  abrogation  of 
treaty,  in  1866,  415  ;  Dominion 
act  restricts  American,  ib. ;  order 


of  Governor-General  of  Canada, 
Mr.  Fish  on,  ib.\  treaty  of  1871 
reopens  the,  ib.;  commission  at 
Halifax,  1877,  award  paid  for  right 
of,  417 ;  decline  in  value  of,  ib. ; 
treaty  of  1871  terminates  in  1885 
by  act  of  Congress,  ib.;  further 
extension  of,  treaty  by  Mr.  Bay- 
ard, 418  ;  present  state  of,  in  arti- 
cle from  Science,  ib. 

Fiume,  Hungarian  port  of,  cause  of 
the  great  prosperity  of,  423. 

Ford,  Thomas  Clare,  416. 

Forsyth,  Mr.,  432. 

Foster,  Mr.  Dwight, .  American 
agent,  Halifax  award,  416. 

,  John  W.,   sent   to   Madrid, 

449 ;  his  treaty  with  Spain,  1884, 

450. 

Fox,  Mr.,  256. 

Franklin,  Dr.,  141,  197  ;  rumor  of 
his  capture  in  Algiers,  200  ;  treaty 
negotiated  with  Prussia,  375,  376. 

Frederick  the  Great,  375. 

Frelinghuysen,  Mr. ,  47,  100. 

Free  ships  make  free  goods,  max- 
im proclaimed  by  France,  368  ; 
adopted  by  United  States,  ib.  ; 
quoted  by  Mr.  Crampton,  387 ; 
by  Mr.  Marcy,  388  ;  Lord  Claren- 
don attacked  for  having  subscrib- 
ed to  principle,  397. 

Fundy,  Bay  of,  American  vessels 
seized  for  fishing  in,  412  ;  com- 
plaints regarding  fishing  in,  to 
British  government,  ib.  ;  Mr.  Ad- 
dington  and  the  President  on, 
ib.  ;  controversy  on  rights  in,  be- 
tween Lord  Aberdeen  and  Mr. 
Everett,  ib.  ;  Lord  Malmesbury 
on,  413  ;  article  in  treaty  of  Great 
Britain  with  France  regarding, 
ib.  ;  ship  Washington  seized  in, 
ib.  ;  dimensions  of,  discussed  by 
commission  for  arbitration,  ib. 


Gall,  A.   T.,  commissioner,  Halifax 

award,  416. 
Gallatin,    Mr,,   286,   287,   288,   381, 

Gardogui,  Don  Diego,  Spanish 
charge  d'affaires,  269 ;  Spanish 
commissioner,  273. 

Gamier- Pages,  401. 

Gibbon,  Lieutenant,  350. 

Godoy,  power  of  Spain  in  hands  of. 


464 


INDEX. 


273 ;  styled  Prince  of  Peace,  274 ; 
his  relations  with  Mr.  Monroe, 
ib.  ;  remarks  in  memoirs  of,  on 
navigation  of  Mississippi,  277. 

Goertz,  Baron  von,  369. 

Gortchakof,  Prince,  125,  395 ;  an- 
swer to  Mr.Marcy's  amendment, 

397- 

Government,  Congressional,  Wood- 
row  Wilson's  book  on,  5  note. 

,  of  United   States,   of  what 

composed,  4  ;  addition  to,  in  time 
of  war,  ib. ;  diplomatic  publica- 
tions of  the,  36. 

Grant,  General,  45  ;  commissioner 
for  commercial  treaty  with  Mex- 
ico, 1882,  1883,  439. 

Guizot,  M.,  253. 


Halifax  Award,  the,  decided  by 
commission,  November  23,  1877, 
417  ;  list  of  commissioners,  416. 

Hale,  Mr.,  261. 

Harrowby,  Lord,  397. 

Haswell,  John  H.,  40. 

Herndon,  Lieutenant,  331,  335,  350. 

Hopkins,  General  Edward,  325. 

Humboldt,  Baron  William,  348. 

Humphreys,  Colonel  David,  Amer- 
ican minister  at  Lisbon,  appointed 
plenipotentiary,  209 ;  letter  of, 
211. 


Jackson,  General,  140. 

Jay,  Mr.  John,  266,  267,  268,  269, 
271. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  8,  186,  196,  197, 
199,  201.  202,  205,  207,  208. 

Jones,  Admiral  Paul,  negotiations 
for  treaty  with  Algiers  entrusted 
to,  208  ;  death  of,  209. 

Joseph  II.,  Emperor,  345,  346. 

Juarez,  President,  435. 

Juges-Consuls  and  their  tribunals, 
43 ;  origin  of  commercial  or  con- 
sular courts  in  France,  ib. 

Juno,  American  ship,  opportune 
arrival  of,  at  Sitka,  293. 


Kasson,  J.  A.,  366. 

Keim,  Mr.,  treasury  agent,  sent  to 

examine  consular  affairs,  59  ;  bill 

of,  59  note. 
Kellogg,  E.  H.,  416. 


Lamb,  John,  his  negotiations  with 
Algiers,  197 ;  Jefferson  and 
O'Brien  on,  205 ;  reception  by 
Dey  of  Algiers,  206. 

Languages,  most  in  use  in  diplo- 
matic circles,  125. 

Lear,  Tobias,  220, 

Legation,  a,  121  ;  attache's  and  sec- 
retaries  of,    duties  and  salaries, 

122,  123,  182  ;  first  appropriations 
made  for  secretaries  of,  182  ; 
qualifications    of   secretaries    of, 

123,  126  ;  the,  at  Madrid,  impor- 
tance of,  449. 

Legations,  complaints  made  to  our, 
160 ;  commercial  difficulties  give 
most  work  to  our,  161. 

Leisler,  Jacob,  who  played  impor- 
tant part  in  early  colonial  history, 
captive  in  Algiers,  194. 

Letters  of  marque  ;  stipulations  re- 
garding, in  our  treaties,  383,  386  ; 
Austria  and  Spain's  declarations 
at  Crimean  war,  385. 

Livingston,  Edward,  184. 

Lopez,  President,  326,  327,  328. 

Lyndhurst,  Lord,  speech  on  right  of 
search,  263. 

Lyons,  Lord,  400. 


Madison,  President,  231,  301. 

Malmesbury,  Earl  of  (James  Har- 
ris), 370,  413. 

Marcy,  Mr.,  141,  143,  313,  325,  335, 
336 ;  instructions  to  Mr.  Trous- 
dale concerning  navigation  of 
Amazon,  2,yJ^  2,Z^^  343  \  on  letters 
of  marque,  386-388,  392  ;  amend- 
ment to  Declaration  of  Paris,  ^F^^* 
395  ;  Reciprocity  treaty,  414,  430. 

Marshall,  John,  8. 

Mason,  Mr.,  142,  143. 

Mathurins,  order  of,  when  institftted, 
207  ;  for  what,  ib. ;  how  employed 
by  Mr.  Jefferson,  ib, 

McLane,  Mr.,  188,  435,  436. 

Melbourne,  Lord,  249. 

Metternich,  Prince,  349. 

Middleton,  Mr.,  296,  299. 

Miller,  Senator,  454. 

Ministers,  their  acceptance  abroad, 
rules  regulating  it,  133 ;  Ameri- 
can, refused  according  to  these 
rules,  134  ;  special,  why  maintain- 
ed at  each  foreign  capital,  169. 

,  how  sometimes  rejected  by 


^?J^ 


'  \ 


INDEX, 


465 


countries  they  are  accredited  to, 
134.  154;  examples,  135,  136,  154; 
136  note. 

Ministers,  plenipotentiary,  when  in- 

^     stituted,    108 ;     their    diplomatic 

Ay  rank,  ib.\  how  differing  from  am- 

^  /'bassadors   and  envoys  extraordi- 

\^       nary,  116. 

,    resident,    when    instituted, 

108  ;  their  diplomatic  rank,  ib.  \ 
American,  when  introduced,  112; 
rank  and  precedence,  ib.\  ques- 
tions of,  114 ;  how  appointed, 
132  ;  salaries  of,  115,  133 ;  diplo- 
matic duties  of,  136,  138,  139,  145, 
146,  157,  162  ;  social  duties,  149, 
155  ;  questions  of  etiquette  for, 
138.  139  ;  John  Quincy  Adams  on 
ceremonies,  138  ;  rank  and  prece- 
dence of,  questions  of,  112  ;  uni- 
forms of  foreign,  of  United  States, 
139  ;  resolution  of  Congress  relat- 
ing to  uniform  of,  ib. ;  uniform  of, 
under  John  Quincy  Adams  and 
General  Jackson,  140  ;  other  ex- 
amples, 141,  142,  143,  145. 

Missions  abroad,  rearranged  ac- 
cording to  relative  importance, 
176. 

Mississippi,  the.  our  western  boun- 
dary in  treaty  of  1783,  269;  nego- 
tiation for  the  freedom  of  the,  how 
carried  on,  270 ;  proposition  to 
Spain  through  Mr.  Jay  relating 
to,  271  ;  Thomas  Pinckney  ap- 
pointed to  treat  with  Spain  on 
navigation  of,  275 ;  treaty  relat- 
ing to  navigation  of,  signed,  276  ; 
fourth  article  of  treaty,  ib.\  pro- 
test of  Spanish  government  to 
minister  at  Washington  relating 
to  navigation  of,  in  1797,  277  ;  an- 
swer of  Mr.  Pinckney,  ib. ,  279 ; 
•whole  banks  of  the,  from  source 
to  mouth,  become  American,  281. 

Modus  Vivendi,  effected  by  John  W. 
Foster  with  Spain,  449  ;  results  of 
its  termination,  ib.,  453. 

Monroe  doctrine,  first  hint  of  the 
policy  known  as,  298. 

• ,  James,  8,  150,  188,  274,  301, 

381  ;  commissioned  to  negotiate 
commercial  treaty  with  Great  Brit- 
ain, 429. 

Morocco,  treaty  with  Emperor  of, 
203  ;  renewal  of,  204 ;  convention 
with,  its  object,  ib. 


Napier,  Lord,  260,  262. 
i  Navigation,  free,  of  rivers  and  seas, 
rights  claimed  by  United  States, 
266;  of  the  Mississippi,  condition 
on  which  obtained,  266  note ;  of 
the  St.  Lawrence,  American  claim 
to,  282 ;  of  rivers  Yukon,  Porcu- 
pine, Stikine,  and  of  Lake  Michi- 
gan granted  to  Britain,  291  ;  of 
Dardanelles,  317 ;  Guizot  on  free 
navigation  of  La  Plata,  320 ; 
treaty  of  England  with  Rosas  con- 
cerning Parana,  321 ;  of  Uruguay 
declared  common  to  contracting 
parties,  ib.\  of  rivers  of  Confede- 
ration free  to  all  flags,  ib.\  of  Par- 
aguay and  right  side  of  Parana, 
ib.\  of  rivers  Parana  and  Uru- 
guay, 322  ;  of  rivers  and  naviga- 
ble waters  flowing  through  Bolivia 
opened  to  the  world,  331  ;  exclu- 
sive right  of  steamers  on  Amazon 
given  to  Brazilian  Company,  ib.\ 
of  Amazon,  why  not  claimed  by 
England  and  France,  334,  335  ;  of 
Amazon  declared  free  by  Ecua- 
dor, 335  ;  Mr.  Marcy  to  Brazilian 
minister  on  free  navigation  of 
Amazon,  336 ;  Mr.  Marcy's  in- 
structions to  Mr.  Trousdale  rela- 
tive to,  of  Amazon,  -^jj ;  Presi- 
dent Pierce's  message  relative  on, 
ib. ;  of  riversof  Peruvian  Republic, 
344;  of  the  Sheldt,  345,  346; 
French  of  Sheldt  and  Meuse,  ib.\ 
demands  of  France  at  Rastadt 
concerning  Rhine  and  other 
rivers,  347  ;  Congress  of  Vienna 
and  of  Verona  on  navigation  of 
Rhine,  348,  349;  question  of 
Sheldt  arranged  at  treaty  of  1839, 
ib. ;  navigation  of  Elbe,  rights  of, 
350 ;  settled  by  treaty,  351  ;  of 
river  Po  settled  by  treaty,  ib.; 
navigation  on  the  Danube,  when 
recognized  by  Austria  and  Tur- 
key, 352  ;  of  Danube  at  outbreak 
of  Crimean  War,  350;  attempts  to 
restrict  it,  354;  action  of  European 
powers,  354,  355  ;  free  navigation 
of  rivers,  singular  questions  in, 
362;  free  navigation  of  Congo  and 
of  Niger  decided  at  Conference 
of  Berlin,  1884,  365. 

— Act,  1790,  426. 

Nesselrode,  Count,  303,  382. 

Neutral  rights,   declaration  of,   by 


466 


INDEX. 


Russia  to  courts  of  London,  Ver- 
sailles, Madrid,  1780 ;  points  of 
declaration,  3,  373  ;  nations  who 
join  convention  of,  374  ;  United 
States  offers  to  join  league,  ib.\ 
provisions  for,  in  United  States 
treaty  with  Netherlands,  ib.  \  and 
in  treaties  with  Sweden  and  Prus- 
sia, 375  ;  Jay's  treaty,  376  ;  treaty 
of  1785  with  Prussia  expires,  379  ; 
renewed  ib.  :  position  of,  at  out- 
break of  Crimean  War,  387; 
treaty  of  1854  between  United 
States  and  Russia  on,  389;  de- 
claration of  principles  of,  at  Con- 
gress of  Paris,  391 ;  adherence 
to  these  principles,  392  ;  refusal  of 
United  States,  ib.\  Mr.  Marcy's 
amendment  to  the  declaration  of 
Paris,  393,  398  ;  opinions  of  sev- 
eral statesmen  on  amendment, 
395-397  ;  General  Cass  on,  at  time 
of  Italian  war,  398  ;  Mr.  Seward's 
circular,  399  ;  answer  of  England 
and  France,  ib.\  rules  of  treaty 
of  Paris  during  Italian  war,  400 ; 
after  Mexican  War  by  Napoleon's 
decree,  ib.  \  at  outbreak  of  Span- 
ish war  of  1866,  ib.\  actions  of  va- 
rious chambers  of  commerce  on, 
401  ;  resolution  of  Federal  Diet  of 
North  Germany,  ib. ;  M .  Gamier- 
Pages'  proposal  at  beginning  of 
Franco-German  War,  ib.\  treaty 
of  commerce  with  Italy,  403. 

O'Brien,  Captain  Richard,  205 ; 
John  Quincy  Adams  on,  206  ;  his 
letter  to  the  President.  211. 

Officers,  diplomatic,  151  ;  salaries 
of,  ib.\  Mr.  Schroeder  on,  ib.\ 
comparative  table  showing  sala- 
ries of,  of  United  States,  Great 
Britain,  and  France,  179. 

Official,  a  diplomatic,  in  no  way  a 
political  one,  129  ;  how  appointed, 
132  ;  credentials,  133. 


Packenham,    Mr.    (Lord     Palmer- 

ston),  397,  429. 
Pacto  del  Assiento  de  Negros.^    the 

article  known  as,  234. 
Page,    Lieutenant    Jefferson,    321, 

326,  327,  328. 
Palmerston,    Lord,    150,    165,    166, 

167,  249. 
Panin,  Count,  369,  371,  373. 


Paraguay,  treaty  of  1853  with, 
provides  for  free  navigation  of 
river,  322  ;  ratification  of  treaty 
with,  prevented,  326 ;  hostile  rela- 
tions of,  with  United  States,  how 
caused,  ib.,  328  ;  decree  issued  by, 
prohibiting  foreign  vessels  from 
navigating  rivers  of,  327  ;  United 
States  sends  commissioner  and 
naval  force  to,  328  ;  two  treaties 
effected  with,  in  1859,  328  note. 

Passarowitz,  treaty  of,  recognizes 
freedom  of  navigation  on  Danube, 
352. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  256. 

Pensacola,  harbor  of,  held  by  Eng- 
land, 206. 

Peru,  terms  of  American  treaty 
with,  in  1851,  329;  Lieutenants 
Herndon  and  Gibbon  sent  to, 
330 ;  treaty  between  Brazil  and, 
article  in  it  for  navigation  of  Am- 
azon, 331  ;  Mr.  Randolph  Clay 
takes  action  to  preserve  American 
rights  in,  ib.,  'i2>2>'f  Loreto  and 
Nauta  made  ports  of  entry  in, 
332  ;  intrigue  in,  against  United 
States  on  opening  of  Amazon, 
333 ;  Brazilian  minister  to,  stirs 
up  controversy  on  Amazon  ques- 
tion, 338  ;  Mr.  Clay  urges  his  gov- 
ernment to  maintain  iheir  rights 
in,  344  ;  treaty  with,  terminates  in 
1863,  ib.  ;  no  treaty  with,  until 
1870,  ib.  ;  decree  of,  opening  all 
rivers  to  merchant  vessels,  ib. 

Pickering,  Mr.,  279. 

Pierce,  President,  on  treaty  with 
Russia,  '^2)7. 

Pinckney,  Thomas,  211,  275,  276, 
279. 

Pinkney,  William,  427. 

Piracy,  slave  trade  declared  to  be, 
by  Lord  Castlereagh,  242;  by 
Congress,  244  ;  the  word  defined, 
ib.  ;  municipal,  international,  as- 
similated, ib. 

Pirates,  can  be  attacked  anywhere 
and  everywhere,  244  ;  examples 
of  capture  by  Barbary,  194;  Pres- 
ident Polk  on  privateers  as,  dur- 
ing Mexican  War,  384. 

Pitt,  William,  bill  of,  425. 

Polk.    President,    on    privateering, 

384. 
Pomeroy,  Professor  John   Norton, 
406. 


INDEX. 


467 


Powers,  diplomatic  and  consular, 
united  in  same  person,  examples, 
172,  173,  174.  175- 

Privateering,  Dr.  Franklin  on,  376  ; 
action  of  United  States  and  Eng- 
land regarding,  in  1823,  381,  383  ; 
France  and  Russia  on,  382 ;  ac- 
tion during  war  with  Mexico,  mes- 
sage of  President  Polk,  384  ;  Aus- 
tria and  Spain  concerning,  at 
outbreak  of  Crimean  war,  385  ; 
declaration  of  England  and 
France  in  1854,  ib.\  injury  to  Eng- 
land by,  statement  of  Lord  Har- 
rowby,  397 ;  Congress  of  Paris, 
declaration  on,  391  ;  Mr.  Marcy 
on,  ib.  ;  theoretical  writers  on  in- 
ternational, 394  ;  Mr.  Seward  on, 
during  our  civil  war,  400. 

Privateers,  injury  to  trade  by  Amer- 
ican, in  Northern  Ocean,  371 ; 
action  of  Empress  Catherine,  ib.  ; 
proclamation  by  French  king  re- 
garding, in  1823,  380 ;  neutrals' 
ownership  of,  383  ;  Norway,  Swe- 
den, and  Denmark  prohibit,  from 
anchoring  in  their  ports,  385  ; 
President  Pierce  on,  389  ;  action 
of  Chamber  of  Commerce,  1854, 
390. 

Pruyn,  Mr.,  144. 


Randolph,  Mr.,  275,  282. 

Red  Book,  the,  34. 

Register,  Historical,  of  Department 
of  State,  40. 

Right  of  Search,  treaties  of  England 
regarding,  238  ;  obtained  by  Eng- 
land by  treaty  with  Spain,  240  ; 
message  of  John  Quincy  Adams 
to  Lord  Castlereagh  relative  to, 
241 ;  Prince  Regent  on,  242  ;  de- 
cision of  Lord  Stowell  on,  243  ; 
Lord  Castlereagh's  proposal  at 
Aix-la-Chapelle,  ib.  ;  treaty  with 
England  stipulates  for  reciprocal 
right  of,  246  ;  Mr.  Adams  on,  248  ; 
Great  Britain  obtains  from  France 
concession  of,  ib.  ;  Duke  of  Wel- 
lington on,  ib.  ;  Lord  Palmerston 
on,  249 ;  Lord  Aberdeen,  Mr. 
Wheaton,  and  Mr.  Lawrence  on, 
250 ;  President  Tyler's  messages 
relating  to,  ib..^  255  ;  treaty  be- 
tween England,  Austria,  Russia, 
Prussia,  and  France   relative  to. 


qualified,  252  ;  action  of  Mr.  Cass 
relative  to,  253,  255  ;  Mr.  Web- 
ster on,  256  ;  De  Cussy  on,  257  ; 
action  of  Parliament  in  1845  on, 
ib. ;  Lord  Napier  and  Mr,  Casson 
on,  260,  261  ;  action  taken  by 
Executive  to  protect  all  vessels 
of  United  States  from,  261 ;  Mr. 
Dallas  on,  262  ;  Lord  Lyndhurst 
on,  263  ;  Mr.  Seward's  acceptance 
of  mutual,  ib. 

Romero,  Mr.,  439. 

Rush,  Mr.,  241,  245,  283,  284,  286, 
381 ;  negotiates  treaty  with  Great 
Britain,  408. 

Russia,  convention  with,  setting 
boundary  of  Russian  posses- 
sions in  America,  299  ;  Mr.  Mon- 
roe on  convention  with,  301 ;  the 
English  papers  on  convention 
with,  ib.,  302  ;  4th  article  of  treaty 
made  at  convention  with,  expires 
in  1834,  302. 

Russian  America,  treaty  of  1867  ne- 
gotiated by  Mr.  Seward — Russia 
cedes  possessions  in,  304 ;  ques- 
tion arising  out  of  treaty  regard- 
ing, ib. 

Russian-American  Company  reor- 
ganizes fur  trade,  1798,  292  ;  in- 
fluence of,  at  Russian  court,  296  ; 
charter  of,  renewed  in  1839  for 
twenty  years,  304. 

Russian,  subjects,  right  of,  to  be- 
come Americans,  304. 

synod   appoints  archbishop 


at  San  Francisco,  304. 

bishop  an  official  of  Russian 


government,  305. 

Ukase,   introduced  by  Rus- 


sian minister,  296  ;  reply  of  Mr. 
Adams  to,  tb.  ;  Professor  Mar- 
tens and  Mr.  Middleton  on,  ib.\ 
Mr.  Adams  on,  298,  299  ;  Baron 
de  Tuyl  on,  298  ;  treaty  fixing 
boundaries  of  possessions  in 
America,  299. 


Sanford,  H   S.,  142,  143. 

Schenck,    General,    144,    321,    322, 

323.  325.  341- 

Secretary  of  State,  by  whom  named, 
4 ;  of  the  Treasury,  by  whom 
named,  ib.\  his  duties,  5  ;  his  pre- 
rogative, ib. 

Secretaries  of  State,  assistant,  their 


468 


INDEX. 


positions  and  duties,   lo,  20 ;  as 
diplomatists,  Adams,  Clay,  Jeffer- 
son,' Marshall,   Monroe,   8 ;    full 
list  of,  ib. 
Seward,   Mr.,  46,   83,  261,  263,  304, 

399  ;  Mexican  treaty,  438. 
Shaler,  William,   consul-general  to 
Algiers,  negotiator  with  Decatur, 
222,  223. 
Simmons,  Senator,  438,  439. 
Skjoldebrand,  Pierre  Eric,  212. 
Slavers,  fitted  out  in  English  ports, 

264  ;  in  New  York,  ib. 
Slavery,  extract  from  Quarterly  Re- 
view on  abolishment  of,  237. 
Slaves,  negro,   first  imported  into 
New  Amsterdam,  233 ;  exclusive 
right   to   introduce,  into  Spanish 
American  provinces  given  to  Great 
Britain,  234  ;  introduction  of,  into 
colonies  a  means  of  preventing 
emigration    from    England,    ib.\ 
importation    of,    punishable    by 
death,  244  ;   law  passed  by  Con- 
gress, ib. 
Slave  trade,  when  first  prohibited 
in  this  country,  235  ;  when  first  by 
English  Parliament,?^.;  by  Den- 
mark, ib.\  United  States  first  to 
prohibit,  ib. ;   motion  of  Brough- 
am on  suppression  of,  236 ;   Mr. 
Marryatt,    extract    from    speech 
on,  ib. ;  action  of  Congress  of  Vi- 
enna relative   to,   238;    right  of 
search  demanded  by  England  in 
order  to  abolish,  ib. ;  real  reason 
for  England's  action  against,  239 ; 
article  introduced  in   Treaty   of 
Ghent  relative   to,   ib.;  treaty  of 
England  with  Spain  obtained  abo- 
lition  of,  south  of  equator,  240  ; 
action  of    Congress  relative   to, 
communicated   by  John   Quincy 
Adams  to  Lord  Castlereagh,  241  ; 
two  American  vessels  condemned 
by  English  Admiralty  court  for 
carrying  on,  242  ;  condemned  as 
piracy  by  Lord  Castlereagh,  ib.\ 
declared  piracy  by  Congress,  244  ; 
resolutions  on  subject  of,  passed 
by  House  of  Representatives,  245 ; 
denounced  as  piracy  under  law  of 
nations,  ib.\    England  succeeded 
in  making  twenty -four    treaties 
for  suppression  of,  in  1849,  258  ; 
greatly   revived  during   Crimean 
war,    258 ;      Act    of    Parliament 


gives  jurisdiction  to  British  Ad- 
miralty Court  over  vessels  en- 
faged  in,  with  Brazil,  ib.\  Mr. 
eward  accepts  Enghsh  proposi- 
tion for  more  stringent  treaty  re- 
lating to,  263 ;  temporary  out- 
break of,  just  before  the  war, 
264. 
Sound  dues,  first  mention  of,  306 ; 
income  derived  from,  307 ;  Mr. 
Clay  on,  308  ;  despatches  to  Mr. 
Webster  by  Mr.  Wheaton  on,  ib.\ 
arrangement  concerning,  309 ; 
an  obstacle  to  Prussian  com- 
merce, t<5.;  Mr.  Upshur  on,  310, 
311 ;  Mr.  Buchanan  empowers 
charg^  d'affaires  to  offer  Danish 
government  indemnity  for,  312  ; 
Mr.  Marcy's  action  concerning, 
313 ;  President  Pierce  on  state- 
ment of  Danish  legation  concern- 
ing, 314;  Denmark  suggests 
capitalizing,  ib.\  extract  from 
message  of  President  Pierce  on, 
315  ;  forever  abolished  by  Euro- 
pean congress,  ib.;  treaty  of 
United  States  concerning,  316 
note. 

Stanley,  Henry  M.,  364. 

Statutes  at  Large,  36. 

Steam  vessel,  $10,000,  offered  for 
first,  to  arrive  from  sea  at  any 
Bolivian  river  port,  331. 

St.  Lawrence,  free  navigation  of 
river,  282  ;  Mr.  Rush  on,  284  note  ; 
Mr.  Clay  on,  285,  286  ;  report  on, 
Mr.  Gallatin  on,  287,  288  ;  Presi- 
dent Adams  on,  287  ;  free  naviga- 
tion of,  gained  as  concession,  not 
as  a  right,  ib. ;  end  of  treaty 
granting  the  free  navigation  of, 
290  ;  navigation  of,  still  claimed 
as  a  right  in  1871,  discussed, 
treated  in  26th  article  of  treaty, 
ib.\  Gulf  of,  fishing  in,  411. 

Stowell,  Lord,  243. 

Strozzi,  Leonardo,  41. 

Sumner,  Senator,  143,  263. 


Talleyrand,  Prince,  on  consular  offi- 
cers, 71. 

Taylor,  President,  429. 

Thiers,  Mr.,  253. 

Thornton,  Sir  Edward,  430. 

Trade,  colonial,  of  United  States 
when  first  independent,  424 ;  con- 


INDEX. 


469 


ditions  of,  with  East  Indies,  427,  I 
428 :  condition  of,  with  Canada 
and  British  colonies  before  1845, 
429 ;  increase  of,  from  1844  to 
1851,  ib.\  proposal  for  reciprocal 
free,  between  Canada  and  United 
States,  ib. ;  Presidents  Taylor  and 
Fillmore  submit  bills  for  recipro- 
cal free,  to  Congress,  ib.\  the  Re- 
ciprocity treaty  of  1854  ends  1866, 
430  ;  new  negotiations  by  Sir  Ed- 
ward Thornton,  1869,  their  fail- 
ure, ib.\  of  Hawaiian  Islands  of 
United  States,  with  Antilles,  445  ; 
old  colonial  system  of,  ib.  ;  act 
of  Congress  of  1864  hampers, 
with  Spain  and  her  possessions, 
447  ;  Spanish  retaliation,  ib. ;  com- 
mercial treaty,  1884,  puts  our,  on 
same  footing  as  Spanish,  450 ; 
statistics  of  United  States  sugar 
refining  business,  455  ;  objections 
by  sugar  refiners  to  treaty  as  in- 
fluencing sugar,  ib. 

Treaties,  with  Borneo,  China,  Ja- 
pan, Madagascar,  Muscat,  Persia, 
Samoa,  Siam,  62  ;  with  Tripoli, 
Algeria,  Tunis,  63  ;  most-favored- 
nation  clause  of,  421 ;  example, 
422  ;  England  makes  twenty-four 
in  1849,  for  suppression  of  slave- 
trade,  258. 

Treaty  power,  in  the  House  and 
Senate,  22 

Trescot,  William  H. ,  Halifax  award, 
416. 

Trescott,  Henry,  429. 

Tripoli,  treaty  with,  by  whom  made, 
terms  and  curious  article  in,  215  ; 
war  declared  with,  218  ;  blockade 
of,  219  ;  capture  of  frigate  Phila- 
delphia in  harbor  of,  ib.  ;  roman- 
tic incident  of  the  war  with,  ib.  ; 
peace  with,  and  results  of,  220. 

,  Bashaw  of,  pays  indemnity, 

and   releases   Christian  captives, 
224. 

Trousdale,  Mr.,  325,  337,  341,  342. 


Tunis,  negotiations  with,  216; 
Christian  slaves  given  up  by, 
230  ;  treaty  with  Bey  of,  by  whom 
made,  217 ;  objections  by  our 
Government  to  articles  in,  ib.\ 
objections  of  Bey  of,  ib.  ;  final 
settlement  of  treaty  with,  by 
whom  effected,  218 ;  cost  to 
United  States,  218  note  ;  remark 
of  Bey  of,  on  Decatur,  224. 

Tuyl,  Baron  de,  296,  297,  298,  299, 
300. 

Tyler,  President,  251,  255. 

Upshur,  Mr.,  311. 

Urquiza,   General,    320,   321,    322, 

323,  324. 
Uruguay,   navigation  of,   declared 

common    to     contracting    states, 

321  ;    treaty    providing    for    free 

navigation  of,  322. 

Vroom,  Mr.,  142. 

Walewski,  Count,  396, 

Washburne,  Mr.,  135. 

Washington,  General,  proposition 
of,  concerning  treaty  with  Al- 
giers, 208. 

,   ship,     in     Nootka    Sound, 


1788,  292. 
Waterwitch,  steamer,  sent  by 
United  States  to  explore  rivers 
emptying  into  La  Plata,  321 ;  gets 
aground  in  river  Parana,  and 
fired  into    by    Paraguayan  fort, 

327- 

Webster,  Mr.,  188,  255,  256,  308, 
309,  310,  311  ;  report  on~CDTnmerce 
with  Zollverein,  433. 

Wellington,  Duke  of,  248,  249. 

Wheaton,  Henry,  44,  190,  250,  308 ; 
negotiates  for  commercial  privi- 
leges with  Germany,  431 ;  his  in- 
structions, 432 ;  treaty  with  Zoll- 
verein, 433,  434. 

Wigfall,  Senator,  438. 


RETURN    CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO— #^    202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
-    HOME  USE 

2                          : 

3 

4 

5                                 ( 

5 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling        642-3405 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

liC^ClW&IU' 

AUG  0  7  1996 

CIRCULATION  DE 

k 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


Y 


CDS71Elfc33S 


